The central legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of the property should be determined based on general principles applicable to determining market value, and the minimum value fixed under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1997 is relevant only for pre-registration inquiries.

S.U. KHAN, J.

1. In this writ petition a detailed interim order was passed on 23.9.2004 calling for counter and rejoinder affidavits. Thereafter counter and rejoinder affidavits were exchanged and parties were heard at length and judgment was reserved.

2. Through the impugned orders sale deed dated 8.9.2000 in respect of 3 acres of agriculture land has been impounded u/s 47A Stamp Act. In the sale deed valuation of property was shown to be Rs. 1,90,000/- which was in accordance with minimum value per acre of agriculture land in the area in question as fixed and circulated by Collector at the relevant time under Rule 4 of U.P. Stamp (Valuation of property) Rules 1997 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1997). Requisite stamp of Rs. 15,200/- was affixed on the said sale deed.

3. One Kamta Prasad son of Gayadeen filed a complaint that valuation of the property in dispute was much more than shown in the sale deed and huge loss (about crores of rupees) to the state Exchequer had been caused by under valuing the property in the sale deed and paying highly inadequate stamp duty. In the complaint it was stated that the property was having Abadi potential. A case on the said complaint was registered on the file of A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Hamirpur in the form of case No. 216 of 2000-01 State v. Prashant Shukla. The case was decided on 31.12,2001 holding valuation of land in dispute to be Rs. 1,700/- per squire meter [total valuation Rs. 2,32,02,960/- (Rupees two crores thirty two lacs two thousand nine hundred and sixty only)]. Accordingly, stamp deficiency of Rs. 18,41,036/- was determined and demanded through the said order alongwith interest for 16 months at the rate of 2% per month amounting to Rs. 5,89,131/-(in this manner through the said order amount of Rs. 24,30,167/-was imposed and demanded as deficiency in stamp duty and interest). A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue) treated the land to be Abadi land. The ratio in between the valuation of the property shown in the sale deed and determined by A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue) is about 1 : 125. Revision filed against the said order being revision No. 119 of 2001-02 was also dismissed by C.C.R.A./ Board of Revenue, Allahabad on 11.8.2004, hence this writ petition.

4. Meanwhile in realization of the said dues of twenty four lacs and odd property covered by the sale deed itself was auctioned on 27.10.2003. State Government purchased the said property for Rs, 1/-. Deputy Collector, Hamirpur accepted the said bid of Rs. 1/- in favour of the State Government on 27.10.2003. Through Annexure-IX which is copy of order dated 31.10.2003, Tahsildar asked Consolidation Officer to record the name of the State Government over the land in dispute in revenue records.

5. In view of the above shocking circumstances the court directed Collector and other concerned authorities to be present in court on 17.9.2004. The authorities present in court through their learned standing counsel stated that the sale in favour of the State Government shall be deemed to be for the entire amount of the dues for which property was put to auction i.e. Rs. 2430167/- under Rule 285-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. The A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue) himself determined the valuation of the property to be rupees two crores thirty two lacs and odd, hence in all fairness State should have purchased the property for the said amount. The court on 17.9.2004 tentatively suggested that both the orders i.e. order determining the market value and deficiency in stamp duty dated 31.12.2001 and order dated 27.10.2003 selling the land in dispute in favour of the State Government might be maintained on payment of the market value of the property as determined by order dated 31.12.2001 by the State to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 after deducting the amount due as stamp duty. However, as recorded in the interim order dated 23.9.2004, office