NAUSHAD AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An agricultural piece of land, measuring 0 858 hectares, from Khasra no. 445, situate in village Dara Ah, District Saharanpur was purchased by the petitioners jointly for a sum of Rs. 6.5 lacs. The sale deed was executed on 18.11 2002, on which the requisite btarnp duty of Rs 65,000/- had been paid Thereafter a complaint was made by one Mohd Ali, Advocate on which the Sub Registrar inspected the spot and submitted his report dated 27 12.2002 In the said report the Sub Registar stated that the land in question was registered as an agricultural land in the revenue records, that no construction had been made on the said land that on one side of the land, a colony in the name of Rashid Garden was bung developed, and that on the other side of the land in question, the land was being used foi agricultural purposes It had also been mentioned in the ,said report that the said land could be used for carving out plots for residential purposes. However, it was also reported that there was no road near the said land or leading to the land in question. However, still the Sub Registrar recommended that the plot in question ought to be valued at the circle rate of Rs 600/- per square meter, according to which the value of the plot comes to Rs 51,48,000/- and, therefore, there was a deficiency of stamp duty of Rs 4,49,000/-. Thereafter, relying on the said report of the Sub Registrar, the Additional Collector, Respondent no.2, passed an order on 24.2.2003 (under sections 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act), holding that the sale deed was under valued and the proper valuation of the plot ought to have been Rs. 51,48,000/- and thus the petitioners were liable to pay the deficiency in stamp duty of Rs 4,49,000/- along with penalty and interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal under section 56 (1-A) of the Act, which has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur, Respondent no.1, vide his order dated 20.6.2003. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sn I. P. Srivastava and S.K Snvastava for the petitioners, as well as learned Standing counsel for the respon dents Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself

(3.) The orders impugned in this writ Petition have been passed solely on the basis of the report oi the Sub Registrar. In the said report itscli it has been stated that the land is registered in the revenue records as agricultural land and is not being used lor any other purpose Merely because a residential colony is proposed in the neighborhood, the same would not mean that this land is also tor residential purpose It is not disputed that the land on the other sides of the plot in question is being used for agricultural purposes. Admittedly, there is no road leading to the plot in question Even then the Sub Registar has recommended, and the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 have held, that the land in question would be residential land and the circle rate for such land, as applicable to residential areas, would be applicable, and thus held that the land ought to be valued at Rs. 600/ per square meter.