Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs State Of U.P.Through Secy.Revenue And 5 ... on 16 October, 2019
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 24 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 487 of 2003 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy.Revenue And 5 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- D.P.Singh,Ravi Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Under challenge are orders dated 29.12.1998 passed by Stamp Collector, Unnao and 12.08.2002 passed in Revision No.763/98-99 whereby the stamp duty submitted by the petitioner for registration of sale deed dated 02.03.1993 has been found to be inadequate and consequently the document was impounded.
2. Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plot in question bearing Gata No.264 situate in Village Wajidpur, District Unnao was agricultural in nature and, therefore, stamp duty could not be charged considering it to be a commercial property. He has drawn attention to paragraph 4 of the writ petition in which it has been specifically stated that plot in question is agricultural in nature on which stamp duty was paid as per the prevailing circle rate as applicable upon agricultural properties. He has also drawn attention to the counter affidavit in which such specific averment made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition has not been denied by opposite parties. Learned counsel for petitioners has also assailed impugned orders on the ground that the same have been passed merely on surmises and conjectures without indicating any order whereby the property in question was converted into one for non-agricultural purposes and that even the circle rate as applicable thereupon has not been indicated in the orders impugned. He has also drawn attention to the fact stated in petition that subsequently the sale deed dated 02.03.1993 was cancelled vide judgment and decree dated 18.09.1996 passed in Regular Suit proceedings numbered as 259 of 1993, which became final. It has been submitted that even due to the said facts there is no occasion for petitioners to make payment of enhanced rate of stamp duty.
3. Per contra, the learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has drawn attention to the contents of counter affidavit wherein in paragraph 2, it has been stated that the village in question adjoins Unnao city area containing well-planned colony of U.P. Aavas Evam Vikas Parishad having thousands of residential, commercial and industrial buildings and as such the assessment of valuation of landed property as per the sale deed were incorrect and denied.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
5. A perusal of impugned order dated 29.12.1998 makes it clear that enhanced rates of stamp duty have been imposed upon petitioners on account of proximity of property in question to Unnao city and its future use as an industrial property. The order does not indicate anywhere that the agricultural nature of property in question was ever converted into one for commercial or non-agricultural use. Law on the said point is already settled by Hon?ble the Supreme Court in Prakashwati v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others reported in (1996) 4 SCC 657 whereby Hon?ble the Supreme Court has clearly held that current use of a property is the sole determinant of stamp duty applicable upon it and its proximity to an industrial or commercial area would not be a determining factor for imposition of stamp duty.
6. In Aniruddh Kumar and others v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others reported in 2000(3) AWC 2587 (Allahabad) the same proposition as laid down by Hon?ble the Supreme Court in Prakashwati(supra) has been followed. The same proposition has been followed in a number of Division Bench and Single Judge decisions such as in Kishore Chandra Agarwal v. State of U.P. and others reported in (2008) 104 RD 235, Sah Karmi Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2007 (4) AWC 3599 (Allahabad), Naresh Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. and others rendered in Writ Petition no.2136(M/S) of 2008 and Munna Lal v. State of U.P. rendered in Writ Petition no.2706(M/S) of 2011.
7. In Aniruddh Kumar and others(supra), this Court has referred the aforesaid Prakashwati's case(supra) and observed as under:-
"In the present case, the market value is to be determined on the basis of the value that would satisfy the vendor. Thus, the question of future potential cannot be a factor for determining the market value of such a land for the purpose of stamp duty payable under the Stamp Act. The vendee pays the price that satisfies the vendor and, therefore, it is the utility of the land as on the date of transfer by the vendor and as such, if the land was an agricultural land, it has to be treated as such and the valuation has to be done accordingly. Whether in future the purchaser puts the land into residential use or changes the character is immaterial for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. The principle that has been laid down in P. Ram Reddy (supra) can be attracted for the purpose of determining the market value only to the extent of potential as on the date of transfer and not beyond. Thus, the market value has to be determined according to the factors, which includes the situation of the land, the amenities available in and around and various other factors, including the close proximity of the residential area as well as any transfer made immediately before the transfer or after the transfer in close proximity if such documents are produced in respect of the area that similarly situated land by either of the parties. "
8. In Rakesh Chandra Mittal and Ors. vs. Addl. District Magistrate and others reported in (2004)3 UPLBEC 2434, a Division Bench of this Court held as under:-
?It is well settled that market value of the property has to be determined with reference to the date on which the document is executed. Market value as such keeps on varying and changing. Any subsequent improvement or change in the nature of or user of the land, which may result into enhancement of the market value of the property on the date of execution of the document that is to be considered for the purpose of determination of proper stamp duty payable on the instrument.?
9. From a perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that stamp duty is to be imposed upon a document in relation to the current use of said property and not for its viability as commercial property for future use. Even close proximity of property in question to a developed industrial or non-agricultural area would not be a determining factor for applicability of stamp duty.
10. In the present case, it has not been denied that the nature of property at the time of execution of sale deed was agricultural. Opposite parties in their counter affidavit have not taken a stand that subsequently nature of property in question has been changed by any order of the competent authority.
11. A bare reading of the order under challenge also clearly indicates that no concrete report was furnished with regard to property in question for its usage. The order enhancing stamp duty are clearly presumptive in nature without any conclusive fact being recorded regarding its use for non-agricultural purpose.
12. In view of the aforesaid, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 29.12.1998 and the revisional order dated 12.08.2002. A further writ in the nature Mandamus is issued directing the Revisional Authority to refund the amount deposited by petitioner along with revision. The refund shall be made within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order is submitted before such authority.
13. In the circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 16.10.2019 kvg/-