IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to sell – Imposition of enhanced stamp duty and penalty – Power of Collector cannot be unduly circumscribed by ruling out potential to which land can be advantageously deployed at the time of execution of instrument or a period reasonably proximate thereto.

JUDGMENT

Abdul Moin, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vikram Soni, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Instant petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:—

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI to quash the impugned order dated 20-07-2022 passed by Learned Collector Gonda and order dated 6-7-2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administrative-II) Devipatan Mandal Gonda, annexed as Annexure No-1 and 2 respectably with this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the concerning authorities to stay the execution and implementation of the order dated 20-07-2022 passed by Learned Collector Gonda and order dated 6-7-2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administrative-II) Devipatan Mandal Gonda during the pendency of the writ petition.”

3. The case set forth by the petitioners is that they had purchased the land Gata No.1842 area 0.7280 hectares situated in village Durgaganj, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil Tarabganj, District Gonda on 04.02.2021 through registered sale deed. Although the land was agricultural yet as more consideration was being paid beyond the value of land as per circle rate, which was Rs.18.20 lakhs but as per the market value of the land sale consideration was paid as Rs.90 lakhs. It is contended that an inspection was conducted by the Sub-Registrar, Tarabganj, Gonda and a report was submittted on 15.03.2021 from which it emerged that plotting was being carried out over the land in dispute and a road was also constructed and the electricity poles had also been installed on the 25 feet wide road. On the basis of the said report, the proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1899’).

4. Despite notice to the petitioners, they failed to put in appearance with the result the competent authority passed an ex-parte order dated 20.07.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The competent authority after assessing the market value of the land in terms of U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1997’) was of the view that the land was to be valued at Rs.3900 per square meter and after arriving at fair market value, imposed stamp duty of Rs.969600 and penalty along with registration fee upon the petitioners.

5. The petitioners being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the appellate authority under the provisions of Section 56(1-A) of the Act, 1899, which appeal has also been rejected vide impugned order dated 06.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

6. Still being aggrieved, instant writ petition has been filed.

7. The grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners while seeking to challenge the impugned orders are that (a) already an excess amount was paid while purchasing the land inasmuch as although the agricultural rate was less yet more amount was paid as sale consideration and consequently, towards stamp duty (b) the respondents have calculated the market value on the basis of prospective utilization of the land which is legally misconceived, (c) the value of residential rate is Rs.2500 per square meter but the competent authority has assessed the value as Rs.3900 per square meter, and (d) inspection having been made at a later date.

8. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Omwati vs. Commissioner, Meerut and others - 2008(3) ADJ 182, the contention is that future market value of the land could not have been taken into consideration by the competent authority while arriving at the fair market value of the said land.

9. On the other hand Sri Vikram Soni, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Sareen vs. State of U.P. and others - 2015