JAGDISH ARORA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Petitioners have filed present writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 29. 6. 2005 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, (F&r) Agra and order dated 5. 9. 2006 passed by Chief Controlling Authority af firming the aforesaid order in revision holding that there is deficiency in stamp duty on two instruments of petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case as mentioned in the writ petition is that peti tioners purchased land bearing Khasra No. 1235 area 0. 386 hectare (3860 Sqm) from one Smt. Manju Agarwal vide registered sale deed bearing No. 731/2005 and the sale deed bearing No. 732/2005 from M/s. Setwell Associate through its partner Sri Rajeev Agarwal of Khasra No. 1236, area 0. 794 hectare situated in Mauja Baipur, Tehsil and District Agra through registered sale deed dated 17. 2. 2005. After the sale deed in question was registered Sub-Divisional Officer carried inspection of the property in question and thereafter notices were issued to the petitioners for filing of reply. Petitioners' claim to have filed reply alongwith documentary evidence and taking stand that there is no deficiency of stamp duty. Objections filed on behalf of the petitioners did not find favour with the authority concerned and order dated 29. 6. 2005 has been passed by the Addi tional District Magistrate, (F&r) Agra finding deficiency in stamp duty and im posing penalty also. Against the said order petitioners preferred Revision No. 152 of 2005 and said revision has also been dismissed. At this juncture present writ peti tion has been filed. After pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the par ties. Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case spot inspection which has been carried out, same was ex-parte to the petitioners and coupled with this precise objection which has been raised by the petitioners though same has been referred to in impugned order but same has not at all been dealt with and coupled with this market value has not at all been de termined as it ought to have been done and on mere surmises and conjecture market value has been fixed and in most illegal manner deficiency has been pointed out and recovery has been directed to be made, as such writ petition deserves to be al lowed. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that valid reasons have been assigned in passing the im pugned order and petitioners have delib erately given wrong particulars of property in question as such orders passed warrants no interference.

(3.) ON the touch stone of the provi sions and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court noted above the facts of the present case are being ad verted to. Sale deed in question was exe cuted on 17. 2. 2005 and on 7. 4. 2005 inspection was made and thereafter notices were issued to which 1 petitioners filed detailed reply. Petitioners took specific stand that on the date of execution of sale deed in ques tion on 17. 2. 2005. Collector Agra had not earmarked the industrial area nor fixed any rate for the same rather he defined agricul ture/residential/commercial lands and there circle rates and as per letter dated 10. 1. 2003 sent by Chief Controlling Authority rates of industrial area would be less than commercial and residential rates but more then agriculture land. Petitioners took specific stand that report dated 7. 4. 2005 was ex-parte report and at no point of time petitioners were ever associated in the inspection which has been car ried out. Petitioners also gave exemplar and also relied on the order passed on 6. 7. 2004 and the order dated 10. 04. 2004 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No. 63 of 2003 (Smt. Santosh Kumar Nirhara v. State of U. P.) where land upto 30 meters of depth on Agra- Mathura National High way was considered at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per square meter and thereafter rates were fixed as Abadi village. In the present case impugned order in questions refers to the objection moved on behalf of the petitioners but at the point of time of when assessment proceedings for evaluat ing the market value of property started then said objection has not at all been taken into consideration. The A. D. M. (F&r) has uniformly applied the rate of Rs. 6000/- per square meter and based on same has com puted the market value but no reason whatsoever has been given by the Stamp Authority as to how almost similar set of circumstances qua land upto 30 meters from National Highway different rate was fixed and beyond 30 meters different rate was fixed and why same parameters were not applied while dealing with, the case of the petitioner. Market value has been based on circle rate of Rs. 6000/- whereas once market value of property has to be deter mined, then circle rates are merely guide lines and the Stamp Authority has to adju dicate the market value of the property in dependently on the basis of oral or docu mentary evidence adduced before him by the parties concerned. Stamp Authority is also entitled to make spot inspection of the property under Rule 7 (3) (c) of 1997 Rules, after giving notice to concerned parties. In the present case admittedly no spot inspec tion has been made by A. D. M (F&r) and reliance has been placed on the report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, qua which peti tioners have taken specific stand that same was ex-parte to them, and this position has not been disputed. Stamp Authority has mentioned that incorrect declaration was made in the instruments qua the distance of property. In case wrong declaration has been made, qua the same action can always be taken for violating section 27 of Stamp Act but to the extent of determining on market value, independent exercise will have to be undertaken, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and after taking into account the evidence led by petitioner also. In fact independent assessment was to be made by the Stamp Authority in deter mining the market value of the property on the basis of evidence adduced and not on the basis of merely circle rate fixed. In the present case as no such exercise has been undertaken spot inspection and precise objection raised by the petitioners has not at all been adverted to. Consequently order dated 29. 6. 2005 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, (F&r) Agra and order dated 5. 9. 2006 passed by Chief Controlling Authority affirming" the aforesaid order in Annpai are hereby quashed. Matter is re mitted back to be decided afresh by the Additional District Magistrate, (F&r), Agra preferably within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. In term of above observations and' direction, present writ petition is allowed. No orders as to cost. Petition Allowed. .