Back
2006 Supreme(UK) 540
HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL
RAJESH TANDON, J.
RAI BAHADUR NARAYAN SUGAR MILLS LTD. , HARIDWAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL - Respondents
WP 709 Of 2006
Decided On : SEPTEBER 22, 2006
Alok Singh, D.Barthwal
The main legal point established is that the stamp duty for agricultural land should be based on the relevant date of the sale deed and should not consider the potential future use of the land.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Agricultural Land - Section 47-A of Stamp Act - Rules 340, 341, 349 of the Stamp Rules - Rules 3, 4 of the Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: The court discussed the application of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act and Rules 340, 341, 349 of the Stamp Rules, as well as Rules 3, 4 of the Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules in determining the stamp duty for agricultural land. The court emphasized that the stamp duty should be based on the relevant date of the sale deed and the potential value of the land should not be considered. The court also referred to relevant case law to support its decision.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to purchase agricultural land for establishing an industry. The petitioner purchased the land, but the authorities demanded additional stamp duty based on potential future use of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the stamp duty should be based on the land's value at the time of the sale deed, not on potential future use. The court quashed the orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of stamp duty for agricultural land based on potential future use.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the stamp duty should be determined based on the relevant date of the sale deed and the potential value of the land should not be considered.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the writ petitions and quashed the orders, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
( 3 ) BY the present writ petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 24/5/2006 and 25/11/2005 passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.
( 4 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in writ Petition No. 712 of 2006 (M/s), are that the petitioner Company sought permission for purchasing agricultural/horticultural land situated in Village Sikkar, Bukkanpur and Gopalpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District haridwar from Uttaranchal Government for the purposes of establishing Agro and Food processing Industry. The permission was granted to the petitioner on the following five conditions :. . (Vernacular matter omitted ). .
( 5 ) IT has further been stated by the petitioner that the recommendation for purchase of 34. 54806 Hectare of land was given by the District Magistrate to the Chief Secretary, Land Resources Branch (Revenue), uttaranchal Government vide letter dated 8-12-2004. The said recommendation letter dated 8-12-2004 is quoted below :. . (Vernacular matter omitted ). .
( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the petitioner company purchased agricultural land (used as grove) of various khasra numbers totalling to 38 Khasras comprising of 3. 4756 hectare of Grove land, Chak No. 24 vide registered sale deed dated 7-4-2005, which are situated in Village Gopalpur, Pargana manglore, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. It is stated by the petitioner that at the time of sale the property in dispute was recorded as revenue paying Agriculture/bhumidhari land. It is also slated in Paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the land was purchased for Rs. 9,15,975/- by the petitioner company. As per the circle rate fixed by the Collector, haridwar at the relevant time, maximum circle rate of the land was Rs. 2,80,000/- per hectare, according to which, the value of the land (for grove) would be rs. 14,59,752/- only, on which the stamp duty of Rs. 1,16,800/- was paid.
( 7 ) THE petitioner was served with a notice from A. D. M. Finance under Section 47a of Stamp Act stating therein that the sale deed in question is undervalued and stamp duty paid is less. The A. D. M. Finance, vide impugned order dated 25-11-2005, observed that the petitioner company could use the land for purposes other than agriculture in future and hence the land should have been valued on much higher price and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 8,21,680/- towards the balance stamp duty and Rs. 1,31,472/- towards interest/penalty totalling to Rs. 9,53,152/- and in case of default, to pay Rs. 16,434/- per month as additional penalty.
( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order dated 25-11-2005 passed by A. D. M. Finance (respondent No. 3), the petitioner went in revision before the Additional Chief Revenue commissioner, Uttaranchal (respondent No. 2), which was registered as Revision No. 16/05-06. However, respondent No. 2 - Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, uttaranchal dismissed the said revision vide impugned order dated 24-5-2006.
( 9 ) MR. Alok Singh, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the A. D. M. Finance as well as the revisional court. e. the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner have not considered that the stamp duty has to be paid on the basis of the land at the time of its purchase and not on the potential value of the land to come in use in future.
( 10 ) MR. Alok Singh, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the government recommendation dated 8-12-2004 and the permission dated 6-1-2005 by which it will be established that the nature of the land, at the time of sale dee
