SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(All) 1754

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jayant Banerji, J.
Yogesh Kumar and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 20442 of 2018
Decided On : 24-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Arpit Agarwal

Headnote:(A) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47A(1)(d) - Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1977 - Definition of 'commercial building' under Rule 2(d) and its relevance concerning the sale deed valuation - The writ petition challenged the designation of part of a building as commercial for stamp duty purposes. The court noted the necessity for determining the valuation based on actual market use at the time of the sale deed execution (Paras 3-30).

(B) Statutory Interpretation - The definition of commercial buildings is contingent on current usage rather than past occupation. Thus, the building’s recent history of commercial activity plays a significant role in assessing its market value (Paras 8, 12, 31).

(C) Burden of Proof - The Collector’s assessment must rely on adequate evidence to ensure proper valuation, avoiding hypothetical determinations. Evidence from neighboring properties can substantiate the market value determination (Paras 11, 32).

Facts of the case:
The petitioners contended that despite the building being classified as partly commercial, it was unoccupied and not in commercial use at the time of sale deed execution, arguing for its re-classification. They sought relief to modify prior orders regarding stamp duty calculations.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the classification of a part of the building as commercial due to its recent use, quashing the previously applied minimum rates for calculation and ordering a fresh valuation based on market standards.

Issues: Whether the building classification as commercial applied based solely on its past usage was appropriate for current valuation?

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the determination of commercial use must be based on the building’s activity at the time of the sale deed, not merely on its past commercial status.

Result: Writ petition partly allowed; remanded for fresh valuation.

Table of Content
1. factual background of property valuation dispute (Para 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding classification of the building (Para 5 , 6)
3. interpretation of 'commercial building' definition and implications (Para 8 , 11 , 12)
4. supreme court precedent on valuation of property use (Para 13 , 19 , 30)
5. court's decision on property valuation process (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari:

(a) whereby quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2017 passed by the Collector, Pilibhit (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) in Computerized Case No. D-2015125600679 ( State Vs. Yogesh Kumar and others ).

(b) by modifying judgment and order dated 9.3.2018 passed by the Chief Controlling Authority/Deputy Commissioner (Stamp) Bareilly Division, Bareilly/Respondent No. 2 [CCRA] (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) in Revision No. 201712001048 ( Yogesh Kumar and others Vs. State ) to the extent that part area of building 185.80 Sq mts on the ground floor held as ‘commercial building’ and imposing deficiency, penalty and interest are wrong and it be determined as non ‘commercial building’ and valuation of the entire building is to be determined as non ‘commercial building’.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent to act according to direction of the Court claimed in para (i)(a) and (b) of the prayer and to complete necessary formalities and send the sale deed dated 05.11.2011 concerning this case to the Sub-Registrar for registration according to law within the time specified by the Court.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to return the amount of Rs. 240000.00 which was deposited by the petitioners with interest at the market value within time specified by this Hon’ble Court.”

3. The facts in brief, as appearing in the writ petition, are that the four petitioners jointly purchased the building having a constructed area of 396.22 sq mtr on ground floor, 380.32 sq. mtr at first floor and 13.37 sq mtr stair case room on the second floor, which are situated over a land situated at Mohalla Muria Panai urf Sungarhi alongside the road between railway station to police station in district Pilibhit for a consideration of Rs. 1,24,00,000.00. However, the valuation of the property as per the circle rate for payment of stamp duty it was computed at Rs. 1,37,67,000/- on which stamp duty of Rs. 9,64,000.00 was paid by the petitioners at the time of execution of the sale deed. After execution of the sale deed on 5.11.2012, it was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Pilibhit who raised an objection regarding its value on the premise that it is commercial building and the same is to be valued for the purpose of stamp duty on the basis of rent per square meter fixed by the Collector being Rs. 190/- as per provisions of Rule 5(c)(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1977. [The Rules]

4. The petitioners submitted their reply to the objection raised by the Sub-Registrar that the building did not fall in the category of commercial building as defined in Rule 2(d) of the Rules on the date of execution of the sale deed as it was not being used as a commercial building. Thereafter the Sub-Registrar referred the instrument for determination of the market value of the property in question and the proper duty payable thereon, to the Collector under section 47A(1)(d) of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899. [The Act] The Collector passed an order on 23.5.2013 holding part of the building measuring 185.80 sq mts on ground floor as commercial building and the rest of the building as non-commercial building and accordingly determin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top