Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 March, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on - 03.03.2023 Delivered on - 20.03.2023 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 49066 of 2012 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Tej Kulshrestha,Manish Chandra Tiwari,Poorva Agarwal,Punit Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. Punit Kumar Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner purchased plot Nos. 1198, 1199, 1200, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213 total nine plots area 1.2030 hectare of Khata No. 410 situated in Village Kalaha Pargana Baghpat Tehsil Khekatha District Baghpat by registered sale deed dated 29.4.2010 from Smt. Kalawati wife of Shri Maniram for sale consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs on stamp duty of Rs. 5 lakhs 60 thousand. Owner of the plot Smt. Kalawati lodged a First Information Report under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. in respect to the aforementioned sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. Smt. Kalawati also filed a suit No. 70 of 2010 for cancellation of sale deed on the ground of fraud. Civil Court vide judgement and decree dated 31.5.2010 decreed the suit on the basis of compromise dated 25.5.2010 cancelling the sale deed executed on 29.4.2010. A report dated 14.5.2010 was submitted by Sub-Registrar to Assistant Registrar to the effect that in East of disputed plot there is a road, in South residential house and agricultural plots are located, the disputed plot is surrounded by boundary wall having large number of fruit bearing trees with one kothari in 21.50 square meter for keeping the agricultural implements. On the basis of aforementioned report proceeding for deficiency of stamp duty has been initiated in respect to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and the same was registered as Case No. 15/1/2011 under Section 47-A/ 33 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. After receiving a notice in the aforementioned proceeding, petitioner filed his objection dated 4.7.2011 stating that he purchased the agricultural plot by registered sale deed executed on 29.4.2010 and even at present the plot is in the shape of grove having large number of fruit bearing trees and there is no residential construction in the plot except one kothari for keeping the agricultural implements. It is also mentioned in the objection of the petitioner that the sale deed in question has been cancelled by Civil Court in suit No. 70 of 2010 vide judgement and decree dated 13.5.2011. Assistant Commissioner Stamp Baghpat heard the aforementioned case No. 15/ 01/ 2011 under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 and vide judgement dated 25.8.2011 have held that there is a deficiency in payment of stamp duty, as such, amount of Rs. 16,92,050/- was found deficient towards payment of stamp duty and penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the ground that in some part of the land abadi has been developed, as such, the stamp duty should be paid according to residential rate of the plot in question. Petitioner challenged the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by Assistant Commissioner Stamp through appeal under Section 56 of Indian Stamp Act along with application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Board of Revenue Camp at Meerut (respondent No.2). The aforementioned appeal was heard by respondent No.2 and the same was dismissed by judgement dated 4.9.2012 affirming the order passed by Assistant Commissioner Stamp dated 25.8.2011. Hence this writ petition.
3. This Court on 24.9.2012 passed the following order:-
"Learned standing counsel is granted one month to file counter affidavit.
List this matter for admission on 29.10.2012.
Subject to the payment of 50% of the disputed amount within three weeks from today, the impugned demand shall remain stayed till 29.10.2012. The penalty, if any, is stayed completely.
Any amount already deposited shall be adjusted against 50% of the amount.
In case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within the period as indicated above, this stay order shall stand automatically vacated."
4. In compliance of the aforementioned interim order dated 24.9.2012, petitioner has deposited a part of the amount towards stamp duty and penalty. Standing Counsel has filed his counter-affidavit. Petitioner has filed his rejoinder-affidavit also.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that has paid the stamp duty according to the circle rate of agricultural plot as the plot in dispute was not residential plot rather the plots were recorded as agricultural plots in the revenue records. He further submitted that respondent No.3 without recording specific finding regarding residential constructions at the time of execution of the sale deed in question has ordered for imposition of deficient stamp duty and penalty which is illegal. He further submitted that treating the plot in question as residential one without considering the reports submitted in the proceeding is illegal. He further submitted that report by Assistant Commissioner Stamp and Sub-Registrar registration are not public document as provided under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as such, the same is not admissible in evidence unless the same is proved in accordance with law. He further submitted that report reveals that number of fruit bearing trees are situated in the plot in question which can be considered as grove within definition of Section 5(14) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such, the rate of residential area cannot be imposed for payment of stamp duty. He further submitted that existence of one Kothari in 21.50 square meter along with tubewell will not make the plot in dispute as residential. He further submitted that the future potential of the land cannot be taken into consideration for imposition of stamp duty rather the status of the plot at the time of execution of the sale deed will be relevant. He further submitted that even the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Civil Court, as such, the petitioner cannot be ordered to pay the deficient stamp duty at the residential rate although at the time of execution of sale deed, the plot in dispute was not residential in any manner. He next submitted that writ petition be allowed setting aside the impugned orders. Counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court as well as of the Apex Court:-
Sr. No. Citation
1.
2015 (9) ADJ 503;
Smt. Vijaya Jain vs. State of U.P.
2. 2016 (2) ADJ 533 Sumatinath Jain vs. State of U.P.
3. 2018 (129) ALR 527 Asha Kapoor vs. State of U.P.
4. 2008 (7) ADJ 293 Vijay Kumar & another vs. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut.
5. 2005 (2) AWC 1087 Ram Khilawan @ Bachcha vs. State of U.P. and another
6. 2008 (8) ADJ 461 Ram Iqbal Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others.
7. 2008 (8) ADJ 748 Ashok Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others
8. Writ C No.36927 of 2011 Radheyshyam Gupta vs. State of U.P. Decided on 12.03.2012
9. Writ C No.23232/2007 The Institute of the Franciscan Clarist Sisters Thru President vs. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Registration U.P. Govt. and others Decided on 18.02.2020.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that impugned orders have been passed, in accordance with law. He further submitted that cancellation of sale deed by the Civil Court does not have any effect in the case pending under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. He further submitted that plot in dispute was situated at Saharanpur road and in the plot, large number of trees and constructions is situated, as such, the respondent No.3 has rightly imposed the deficient stamp duty as well as penalty upon the petitioner. He further submitted that report of Assistant Inspector General have stamp dated 14.6.2011 is sufficient for imposition of deficient stamp duty upon the petitioner and the same has been rightly relied upon by the respondent No.3. He further submitted that appeal filed by petitioner has also rightly dismissed affirming the judgment of Assistant Commissioner Stamp. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that the plot in dispute was recorded as agricultural plot in the revenue record at the time of execution of sale deed. There is also no dispute about the fact that the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner in the year 2010 has been subsequently cancelled by the Civil Court vide judgement and decree dated 31.5.2010. There is also no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 47A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has been initiated and the order has been passed for payment of deficient stamp duty and penalty which has been affirmed in appeal by respondent No.2.
9. Since the total nine plots purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 29.4.2010 was recorded as agricultural plot at the time of execution of sale deed, in the khatauni of 1412-1417 fasli as well as the khasra of 1411 fasli have been annexed as Annexure No. R-A-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit. There is no mention of any construction in the khasra, as such, it cannot be said that constructions are situated in the plot in dispute.
10. The paragraph No.4 of the rejoinder affidavit dated 29.10.2021 filed by petitioner will be relevant for perusal which is as under :-
"4. That the contents of paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit are wholly incorrect and denied and the contents of the paragraph No.3 of the Writ Petition are reiterated and reaffirmed. It is absolutely incorrect to state that the property which was transferred by the questioned Sale Deed is not the agricultural land. The nature of the property is mentioned in the Khasra which is prepared by State Respondents themselves and in the Khasra, the land which was purchased by the Petitioners is still recorded as the agricultural land therefore, the allegation that the same is not an agricultural land is based upon presumption only and there is no document to the contrary on the basis of which a presumption can be drawn that the land was being used for Abadi purposes. A xerox copy of Khasra and Khatauni are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure No.R.A.-1 to this Rejoinder Affidavit."
11. The report submitted by Inspector General (Stamp), Baghpat dated 14.6.2010 which is annexed along with the counter affidavit of the State also demonstrates that the stamp duty paid by the petitioner is in accordance with law as the relevant time for payment of stamp duty is the date of execution of sale deed in respect to the plot in dispute. The revenue records annexed by the petitioner along with the rejoinder affidavit fully demonstrate that plot in dispute is recorded as agricultural plot at the time of execution of the sale deed and no residential construction has been mentioned in the revenue records.
12. The objection dated 4.7.2011 filed by petitioner in the aforementioned proceeding will be relevant for consideration which are as follows:-
" न्यायालय सहायक आयुक्त महोदय बागपत जनपद बागपत।
वाद संख्या 15/01/2011 सरकार बनाम प्रदीप अन्तर्गत धारा 47ए/33 भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम आपत्ति ओर से प्रदीप कुकार पुत्र श्याम सिंह निवास पुराना कस्बा बागपत जनपद बागपत निम्न प्रकार हैः-
1. यह कि प्रार्थी/ आपत्तिकर्ता को दिया गया नोटिस कमी स्टाम्प विधि विरूद्ध होने के कारण खण्डित होने योग्य है।
2. यह कि प्रार्थी/ आपत्तिकर्ता ने उक्त कथित निष्पादित बैनाम दिनांक 29.04.2010 का निष्पादन सब रजिस्ट्रार खेकडा जिला बागपत के सम्मुुख कुल रकबा खाता संख्या 410 खसरा नम्बरान 1198 रकबा 0.090 है व 1199 रकवा 0.2780 है व 1208 रकबा 0.2020 है० व 1209 रकबा 0.1260 है व 1210 रकबा 0.1770 व 1211 रकबा 0.1270 है० हव 1212 रकबा 0.1140 है० व रकबा 0.080 है० व 1213रकबा 0.0020 है कुल खेत रकबा 1.2030 है० लगान परतेनुसार मे ½ भाग रकबा बकदर 0.6015 है० व खाता संख्य 408 खसरा नम्बरान 1202 रकबा 0.1510 है व 1203 रकबा 0.1390 है० व 1204 रकबा 0.0630 है० व 1205 रकबा 0.19000 व 1206 रकबा 0.0880 है० कु० पांच खेत रकबा 0.5310 हैक्टेयर लगानी परतेनुसार मे ¼ भाग कुल रकबा बकदर 0.1327 है० अर्थात कुल रकबा 0.73425 हेक्टेयर का कराया था जिसका मौका मुआयना बैनामा निष्पादित करने से पूर्व सब रजिस्ट्रार खेकड़ा ने किया था तथा उक्त भूमि कृषिभूमि थी तथा उसमे कृषि का ही कार्य होता था तथा उक्त समस्त भूमि राजस्व अभिलेखो मे भी कृषिभूमि ही दर्ज ची आती है उसकी आधार पर प्रार्थी/आपत्तिकर्ता सर्किल रेट 60,00,000/- रूपये प्रति हेक्टेयर से भी ज्यादा 75 प्रतिशत बढाकर विक्रीत रकबे की मालियत 1,05,00,000/- रूपये प्रति हेक्टेयर से अंकन 77,09,625.00 रूपय से ऊपर 80,00,000/- रूपये अदा किया है जो सरकारी सर्किल रेट लिस्ट से भी अधिक है। प्रार्थी/ आपत्तिकर्ता ने उक्त स्टाम्प शुल्क सही विधिसंगत अदा किया था जो न्यायहित मे चित होने के कारण प्रार्थी/ आपत्तिकर्ता को दिया गया नोटिस केवल महज प्रार्थी रू०/ आपत्तिकर्ता को परेशान करने की नीयत से दिया गया है जो सर्वदा काल्पनिक तथ्यो पर आधारित है जो हरहालत मे खण्डित होने योग्य है।
3. यह कि सहायक महानिरीक्षक निबन्धन बागपत की रिपोर्ट पत्रांक 332 दिनांक 14.06.2010 महज झूठ काल्पनिक मनघडन्त तथ्यो पर आधारित है उक्त रिपोर्ट मे श्रीमान सहायक महानिरीक्षक निबन्धन का सवयं ही यह कथन है कि उक्त भूमि के पश्चिम मे खेत है जिनमे आज भी खेती हो रही है इससे स्पष्ट होता है कि प्रार्थी/ आपत्तिकर्ता द्वारा क्रय की गयी कथित भूमि कृषिभूमि थी जिस पर प्रार्थी/ आपत्तिकर्ता ने सही स्टाम्प अदा किया है इसलिए प्रार्थी/ आपत्तिकर्ता को दिया गया नोटिस विधि संगत न होने के कारण खण्डित होने योग्य है।
4. यह कि सहायक महानिरीक्षक निबन्धन बागपत ने अपनी रिपोर्ट मे यह भी कथन किया है कि उक्त प्रलेख मे अंकित खसरा नम्बरानो मे से कुछ मे लगभग 766.3 वर्गमीटर मे दिल्ली सहारनपुर रोड़ की तरफ आवासयी मकान बने है तथा जिसके बारे मे लोगो द्वारा बताया गया कि उनके द्वारा लगभग 30-35 वर्ष पूर्व जमीन ले ली थी। उक्त रिपोर्ट मे माननीय सहायक महानिरीक्षक निबन्ध बागपत ने न तो यह अंकित किया कि वहां पर किन किन व्यक्तियो के आवासीय मकान बने है और न ही यह अंकित किया कि किन किन व्यक्तियो के कितने कितने वर्गमीटर मे उक्त कथित मकान है और न ही यह अंकित किया कि उक्त मकान किस किस खसरा नम्बराना मे बने है। जिससे विदित होता है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट सहायक महानिरीक्षक निबन्धन बागपत की दिनांकित 14.06.2010 स्वयं ही भ्रामक व अस्पष्ट है जो कतई भी विधि संगत नही है क्योकि रिपोर्ट स्वयं ही विरोधाभाषी होने के कारण न्यायसंगत नही है इसलिए उक्त रिपोर्ट पर कई भी विश्वास नही किया जा सकता है इसलिए उक्त रिपोर्ट खण्डित की जाकर प्रार्थी / आपत्तिकर्ता को दिया गया नोटिस भी खण्डित किया जाना न्यायाहित मे आवश्यक है क्योकि एक भूमि का केवल एक ही बार बैनामा निष्पादित किया जा सकता है दो बार बैनामा निष्पादित नही किया जा सकता।
5- यह कि सहायक महानिरीक्षक निबन्धन बागपत न अपनी रिपोर्ट मे यह भी अंकित किया है कि उक्त भूमि मे एक तरफ आवासी मकान बने है तथा भूमि के अन्दर एक टयूबवैल व एक मकान बना हुआ है। क्षेत्रफल लगभग 21.50 बना है जिससे स्पष्ट होता है कि उक्त भूमि पर खेती होती है उक्त भूमि केवल कृषि प्रयोजनार्थ हेतु ही उपयोग मे लायी जा रही थी तथा 21.50 वर्गमीटर मे ट्यूबवैल व आवासीय मकान बनना किसी भी दशा मे सम्भव नही है। जिससे स्पष्ट होता है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट केवल काल्पनिक मिथ्या अभिवचनो पर आधारित होने के कारण स्वीकार्य नही है जो हर दशा मे खण्डित की जाकर प्रार्थी / आपत्तिकर्ता को दिया गया नोटिस कमी स्टाम्प हर दशा मे खण्डित होने योग्य है।
6. यह कि सहायक महानिरीक्षक निबन्धन बागपत ने अपनी रिपोर्ट दिनांकित 14.06.2010 मे यह भी अंकित किया है कि मौके पर अमरूद व बेरी आदि के कुल 192 पेड पाये गये जिनकी अनुमानित मालियत 192000 रूपये होती है परन्तु सहायक महानिरीक्षक ने अपनी रिपोर्ट मे यह स्पष्ट अंकित नही किया कि उक्त पेडो मे कितने पेड अमयद के है तथा कितने पेड बेरी के है तथा अन्य कितने पेड किस चीज के है तथा उक्त कथित पेडो की उम्र तथा ऊचाई कितनी है तथा सहायक महानिरीक्षक निबन्धन बागपत ने उनकी कीमत किस आधार पर 192000 रूपये आँकी है। तथा कीमत का क्या मापदण्ड है ऐसा उक्त रिपोर्ट मे कही भी वर्णित नही है जिससे स्पष्ट होता है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट मनमाने ढंग से काल्पनिक तथ्यो का सहारा लेकर सर्वदा विधिक तथ्यो को नजरादाज करते हुए गलत तरीके से बनाई गयी है जो कतई भी स्वीकार नही है जो विधि विरूद्ध होने के कारण खण्डित होने योग्य है तथा उक्त भूमि मे स्वयं ही यह कथन कि उक्त भूमि मे गेंदा के पेड लगे है से स्पष्ट होता है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट स्वयं ही विरोधाभाषी व मानघढन्त है जो खण्डित होने योग्य है तथा प्रार्थी/ आपत्तिकर्ता को दिया गया नोटिस भी न्याहित मे खण्डित होने के योग्य है।
7. यह कि सहायक महानिरीक्षक महानिबन्धन बागपत की दिनांकित 14.06.201 की रिपोर्ट के अऩुसार जिस प्रकार उन्होने मुल्यांकन किया है मूल्यांकन का कोई भी मापदण्ड उन्होने अपनी रिपोर्ट मे नही दिया है केवल मनमाने ढंग से मूल्यांकन किया जो प्रार्थी / आपत्तिकर्ता को कतई भी स्वीकार नही है तथा उक्त रिपोर्ट विरोधाभाषी एवं काल्पनिक तथ्यो का सहारा लेकर बनायी गयी है जो अस्पष्ट है क्योकि उक्त रिपोर्ट मे कही पर भी यह नही अंकित किया गया है कि प्रलेख मे वर्णित कुछ खसरा नम्बरान 30-35 वर्ष पूर्व विक्रीत हो चुके है जिससे स्पष्ट होता है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट गलत तथ्यो पर आधारित है जो खण्डित की जाकर उक्त नोटिस विधिसंगत न होने के कारण खण्डित किया जावे।
8. यह कि श्रीमान सिविल जज जूनियर डिवीजन बागपत वाद संख्य 70/2010 श्रीमती कलावती बनाम प्रदीप आदि मे पारित आदेश दिनांक 13.05.2010 को उक्त निष्पादित बैनामा श्रीमान न्यायालय द्वारा निरस्त किया जा चुका है तथा सूचना कार्यालय उपनिबन्धक खेकडा को भी प्रेषित की जा चुकी है। जिससे स्पष्ट होता है कि उक्त भूमि प्रार्थी/ आपत्तिकर्ता के पास न होने के कारण उक्त कोई अदायगी अथवा कोई भी किसी भी प्रकार की कोई भी जिम्मेदारी प्रार्थी / आपत्तिकर्ता की नही है और ना ही विधिकरूप से प्रार्थी / आपत्तिकर्ता उक्त कोई भी किसी भी प्रकार की अदायगी अथवा जिम्मेदारी का विधिक रूप से जिम्मेदार नही है। जिस कारण प्रार्थी / आपत्तिकर्ता को दिया गया नोटिस विधि विरूद्ध होने के कारण खण्डित किया जाना नितांत आवश्यक है। आदेश की छायाप्रति संलग्नक है।
अतः श्रीमान जी से प्रार्थना है कि उपरोक्त तथ्यो एवं कथनो के आधार पर सहायक महानिरीक्षक निबन्धन बागपत की रिपोर्ट स्थल दिनांकित 14.06.2010 को खण्डित फरमाया जाकर प्रार्थी को दिया गया नोटिस कम स्टाम्प का खण्डित फरमाने के आदेश पारित करने की कृपा करे। अति कृपा होगी।"
13. The perusal of the objection dated 4.7.2011 fully demonstrate that report dated 14.6.2018 submitted by the Stamp Authorities are not in accordance with the provisions contained under Rules- 4,5, and 7 of U.P. Stamp Rules 1997.
14. The Full Bench of this Court in the case reported in 2015 (127) RD 855 Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs. State of U.P. has held as under in Paragraph Nos. 27, 28 and 29:-
"27. The true test for determination by the Collector is the market value of the property on the date of the instrument because, under the provisions of the Act, every instrument is required to be stamped before or at the time of execution. In making that determination, the Collector has to be mindful of the fact that the market value of the property may vary from location to location and is dependent upon a large number of circumstances having a bearing on the comparative advantages or disadvantages of the land as well as the use to which the land can be put on the date of the execution of the instrument.
28. Undoubtedly, the Collector is not permitted to launch upon a speculative inquiry about the prospective use to which a land may be put to use at an uncertain future date. The market value of the property has to be determined with reference to the use to which the land is capable reasonably of being put to immediately or in the proximate future. The possibility of the land becoming @ Bachcha vs. State of U.P. and another has held the principles for determining the market value for the purpose of stamp duty is the date when the document is registered and the market value has to be determined in accordance with the general principles as applicable in land acquisition cases without taking recourse to minimum market value fixed in accordance with Rule-4 of U.P. Stamp Rules 1997.
16. Paragraph Nos. 23,24 and 25 of the judgment rendered in Ram Khelawan (Supra) will be relevant for consideration whi available in the immediate or near future for better use and enjoyment reflects upon the potentiality of the land. This potential has to be assessed with reference to the date of the execution of the instrument. In other words, the power of the Collector cannot be unduly circumscribed by ruling out the potential to which the land can be advantageously deployed at the time of the execution of the instrument or a period reasonably proximate thereto. Again the use to which land in the area had been put is a material consideration. If the land surrounding the property in question has been put to commercial use, it would be improper to hold that this is a circumstance which should not weigh with the Collector as a factor, which influences the market value of the land.
29. The fact that the land was put to a particular use, say for instance a commercial purpose at a later point in time, may not be a relevant criterion for deciding the value for the purpose of Stamp duty, as held by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Ambush Tandon, 2012 (5) SCC 566. This is because the nature of the user is relatable to the date of purchase which is relevant for the purpose of computing the Stamp duty. Where, however, the potential of the land can be assessed on the date of the execution of the instrument itself, that is clearly a circumstance which is relevant and germane to the determination of the true market value. At the same time, the exercise before the Collector has to be based on adequate material and cannot be a matter of hypothesis or surmise. The Collector must have material on the record to the effect that there has been a change of use or other contemporaneous Sale Deeds in respect of the adjacent areas that would have a bearing on the market value of the property which is under consideration. The Collector, therefore, would be within jurisdiction in referring to exemplars or comparable sale instances which have a bearing on the true market value of the property which is required to be assessed. If the sale instances are comparable, they would also reflect the potentiality of the land which would be taken into consideration in a price agreed upon between a vendor and a purchaser."
15. In the case reported in 2005 (98) RD 511 Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha vs. State of U.P. and another has held that the principles for determining the market value for the purpose of stamp duty is the date when the document is registered and the market value has to be determined in accordance with the general principles as applicable in land acquisition cases without taking recourse to minimum market value fixed in accordance with Rule-4 of U.P. Stamp Rules 1997.
16. Paragraph Nos. 23,24 and 25 of the judgment rendered in Ram Khelawan (Supra) will be relevant for consideration which are as under :-
"23. The view that Rules of 1997 (which have been framed at the place of old Rules 340, 340-A and 341) cannot be taken into consideration at the time of determination of market value which I have taken is squarely covered by the authority of a Single Judge of this Court in Aniruddha Kumar v. C.C.R.A. In the said authority it has also been held that agricultural Jand cannot be treated as residential plot unless declaration under section 143 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is made and that market value of land is to be determined on the basiis of the character of the land and its user. In para-21 of the said authority it has also been held that valuation cannot be determined on the basis of its future potential.
24. In H.L. Sahu v. State of U.P. a Single Judge of this Court struck down Note-2 of order dated 3.8.1997 prescribling circle rate of District Kaushambi under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1997 which provided that in case agricultural land is not transferred in favour of a co-tenure holder or a person having adjoining agricultural plot then the same shall be valued on the basis of per Sq. Meter in case area of the land sold is less than 1500 Sq. Meter.
25. It has been found in several cases like the present one that the entire basis of determination of market value for the purpose of stamp duty is ex-parte report of Tehsildar or other officer. Ex-parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under section 47-A of Stamp Act. However, for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report After initiation of the case inspection ils to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule-7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997. Moreover, in the inspection report distance of the property from other residential or commercial properties and road must be shown and wherever possible sketch map must also be annexed alongwith the report so that correct valuation may be ascertained with reasonable certainty."
17. In view of law laid down by this Court, the imposition of stamp duty and penalty upon the petitioner in respect to the plot which was recorded as agricultural plot in the revenue record is illegal as well as in view of illegal report dated 14.6.2020 which was against the provision of U.P. Stamp Rules 1997 the impugned orders can not be sustained in the eye of law.
18. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as the ratio of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Pushpa Sareen (Supra) as well as Single Bench of this Court in Ram Khelawan (Supra), the impugned orders dated 4.9.2012 passed by respondent No.2 - Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Board of Revenue Camp at Meerut and 25.8.2011 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner of Stamp/Collector Stamp, Baghpat, are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
19. The writ petition stands allowed and respondents are directed to refund the amount deposited by petitioner in pursuance of the impugned orders within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the authority.
Order Date :- 20.3.2023 Vandana Y.