BAHRAICHEE Vs. UPPER AYUKT BASTI MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Shiv Dayal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Shukla, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 22.4.2002 passed by the Addl. Collector, Stamps as well as the order dated 31.3.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Basti Region, Basti. The petitioner purchased the land in dispute for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and paid Rs. 2,400/- as stamp duty and the document was executed on 5.1.2001. However, on an assumption that there was deficiency of stamp duty, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act, 1899). A report was called from the Tehsildar and the Tehsildar submitted his report on 26.3.2002 in which it was stated that the property was an agricultural land and even at the time of spot inspection it was found that wheat crop was being grown on the said land. The Stamp Authority has however recorded that the land in question is so small that there is every possibility of its being used for residential purposes and, therefore, has assessed the market value of the property at Rs. 2,98,025/- on which he has assessed Rs. 23,920/- as stamp duty and after deducting Rs. 2,400/- which has already been paid by the petitioner, the deficiency of stamp duty has been calculated at Rs. 21,520 + Rs. 6,886/- by way of penalty and registration charges of Rs. 4,400/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Addl. Collector, Stamps the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Basti Region, Basti who has also held that the land is small and there is possibility that the same would be used for residential purposes.

(3.) In my opinion the findings of the authorities are absolutely illegal and arbitrary are based on mere assumption and presumption considering the future potentiality of the land use. This is not permissible. The Tehsildar in his report has himself held that the land is agricultural and even on the date of spot instructions wheat crop was growing on the said land, therefore, on a mere assumption the Stamp Collector in a most arbitrary fashion held that the potentiality of the land in future is for residential usage.