SEEMA RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.4.2009, passed under Section 47A(3) filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and the subsequent order dated 23.8.2009, passed in appeal under Section 56(1A) of the Indian Stamp Act.

(2.) The main ground of challenge in the writ petition is that without determination of the actual market value of the land the Collector has proceeded merely on the basis of circle rate prevalent for residential plots and determined the deficiency in the stamp duty. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the said property, area of which is said to be .134 hectares has been purchased to increase his holding considering the fact that the adjoining land is that of the petitioner where cultivation etc. is being done by the petitioner. It is also admitted that the said plot is a gaddha, i.e., a ditch and, therefore, cannot be used for agricultural purpose in its present state. The contention of the petitioner is that the plot in question is surrounded by agricultural property in which agricultural activities are going on and no abadi is there in the vicinity. However, one boundary wall of the Roadways Stand is there but that alone cannot be a determinative factor for treating the property to be residential. Further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector has relied upon a report dated 24.3.2007 which is said to be of prior to initiation of the proceeding under Section 47A(3) of the Act and, therefore, the Commissioner erred in law in relying upon the same. Further contention is that subsequent spot inspection report submitted by the Sub-Registrar dated 24.1.2008 clearly mentions that the property is agricultural and, therefore, the order of the Collector treating the property to be residential cannot be sustained as the same has been held to be so without any basis. The matter was carried to the Commissioner but the Commissioner also affirmed the order of the Collector without interfering with the same.

(3.) The point for consideration before this Court is that the property in question which is held by the Collector to be of residential potentiality is on the basis of report dated 24.3.2007 but the subsequent report of the Sub-Registrar dated 24.1.2008 has given a finding that the property in question is agricultural. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the Collector to have made spot inspection himself since there was difference between the two reports.