The classification of land for stamp duty must be based on actual use and verified inspections, not merely on surrounding residential activities.

JUDGMENT :

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated August 2, 2022 passed by Additional Commissioner (Stamp), Chitrakoot Division, Banda/respondent No. 2 and the impugned order dated January 31, 2020 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue)/Stamp Collector, Mahoba/respondent No.3

FACTS

2. Factual matrix of the present case is delineated below:

a) The petitioner is a resident of village Jaitpur, Tehsil Kulpahar, District Mahoba, who purchased an agricultural land through a registered sale deed dated January 12, 2016 for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

b) On February 11, 2016, the petitioner filed a mutation application for her name to be mutated in the revenue record, which was subsequently allowed by the Tehsildar vide an order dated February 19, 2016 and the petitioner's name has been entered in the revenue record.

c) On March 3, 2016, The Sahayak Mahanirikshak Nibandhan, Mahoba/ respondent No. 4 submitted a report before the respondent No. 3, citing a deficiency of Stamp duty of Rs.2,38,720/- with regard to the petitioner's sale deed.

d) Based on the report of the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 3 initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and issued notice on July 16, 2016. The petitioner responded to the notice by filing a reply dated April 24, 2017 denying the allegations.

e) On September 12, 2018, the Tehsildar conducted a spot inspection and confirmed that Plot No. 2563 and Plot No. 2564 are agricultural land with crops of ‘Urad’ and ‘Kachhiyana.’

f) On January 31, 2020, the respondent No. 3 passed an order whereby he directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 2,34,080/- and the deficit registration fee of Rs. 4,640/- along with a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- with respect to the sale deed in question. He also directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 1.50 percent per month on the deficit stamp fee from the date of execution of the sale deed i.e. June 12, 2016 till the date of deposit of stamp duty.

g) Against the order passed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 56(1-A) of the Act before the respondent No. 2 who, vide order dated August 2, 2022 partially allowed the appeal and reduced the amount of deficit stamp duty from Rs. 2,34,080/- to Rs. 1,09,880/-.

h) Being aggrieved by the orders dated January 31, 2020 and August 2, 2022 passed by the authorities below, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

3. Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submissions:

(a) The circle rate of the petitioner's land is evident from the Annual Valuation List dated August 1, 2017 issued by the District Magistrate's office.

(b)The petitioner has paid stamp duty based on valid rate lists and considerations such as the plot's adjacency to a road.

(c) The Tehsildar and Area Lekhpal conducted a spot inspection on September 12, 2018 and submitted their report. The report stated that Plot No. 2563 and Plot No. 2564 are agricultural lands with crops 'Urad and Kachhiyana'.

(d) Since the land is recorded as agricultural land in the existing revenue record and lacks a declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, its agricultural nature remains unchanged. Therefore, its market value for stamp duty payment should be assessed on its agricultural character rather than speculative future potentiality.

(e) The adjacent agricultural property's alleged residential use, leading to undervaluation claims, lacks rational basis and is based on arbitrary grounds, as noted in the spot inspection report and the boundary wall mentioned is for protecting agricultural produce from animals, not indicative of residential us