STATE OF U.P. Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Standing Counsel representing petitioner State of U.P. and the counsel for the respondents in both the writ petitions.

(2.) The facts in both the writ petitions are identical and relate to the same plots and as identical issues are involved in both the writ petitions, therefore, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

(3.) Sale deed dated 15.06.2013 was executed in favour of the respondents in Writ Petition C- No. 68709 of 2015 for Plot Nos. 1142/1 and 1149/2 (area 0.3744 hectares) and similar sale deed dated 15.06.2013 for different parts of the same plots but of an equal area was also executed in favour of the respondents in Writ Petition C- No. 68716 of 2015. The aforesaid sale deeds were submitted for registration by the respondents disclosing the plots to be agricultural plots and stamp duty was paid on the said sale deeds after computing it at the rates fixed by the Collector for agricultural plots. Reports dated 17.06.2013 were submitted by the Sub-Registrar stating that commercial and residential buildings existed on the plots and properties in the neighbourhood of the purchased plots were being sold at residential rates and there was deficiency in payment of stamp duty on the two sale deeds as the properties were undervalued by the vendees in the two sale deeds. On the reports dated 17.06.2013, Case No. 21/2012-13 under Sec. 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act, 1899') was registered in the court of the Collector (Stamp), Etawah against the respondents in Writ Petition C- No. 68709 of 2015 and Case No. 22/2012- 13 under Sec. 47-A/33 of the Act, 1899 was registered against the respondents in Writ Petition C- No.68716 of 2015. Show cause notices were issued to the respondents in the aforesaid cases who submitted their objections/reply before the Collector. In their objections/reply, the respondents stated that the plots were agricultural in nature and were being used for agricultural purposes at the time of execution of the sale deeds and were still being used for agricultural purposes. In their reply the respondents further stated that the plots had not been declared as non-agricultural under Sec. 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1950') and no construction existed on the same. It was further stated by the respondents in their reply that plots were in form of pit and, therefore, they cannot be treated as residential plots. It is relevant to note that, in their reply, the respondents had not denied that properties in the neighbourhood of the plots purchased by them were being sold at residential rates and commercial as well as residential buildings existed in their neighbourhood. During the proceedings in the cases before the Collector, different sale deeds were filed as exemplars by the Revenue to prove that properties in the neighbourhood were being sold at residential rates. The Collector vide his order dated 31.07.2014 held that the market value of the plots as well as the stamp duty to be paid on the said sale deeds had to be determined by applying the rates fixed for residential plots and, therefore, there was a deficiency in payment of stamp duty on the aforesaid sale deeds. In his orders dated 31.07.2014, the Collector held that there was a deficiency of Rs. 10, 61,060.00 in payment of stamp duty on the said sale deeds and, therefore, through his orders dated 31.07.2014 directed that the aforesaid amount along with a penalty of Rs. 2 lakh and an interest calculated @ 1.5% per month be recovered from the respondents. The orders dated 31.07.2014 were challenged by the respondents by filing appeals under Sec. 56 of the Act, 1899 before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad. The appeal filed by the respondents in Writ C- No. 68709 of 2015 was numbered as Stamp Appeal No. 1217 of 2014-15 and the appeal filed by the respondents in Writ C- No. 68716 of 2015 was registered as Stamp Appeal No. 1218 of 2014-15. The Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad vide its orders dated 12.05.2015, passed separately in both the appeals, partly allowed the said appeals on the ground that there was no evidence that a marriage hall existed on the same plots as purchased by the respondents and as there was no declaration under Sec. 143 of the Act, 1950, therefore, market value of the plots as well as the stamp duty to be paid on the same were to be determined by applying the rates fixed by the Collector for agricultural plots and not the rates fixed by the Collector for residential plots. In his orders dated 12.05.2015, the Board of Revenue, Allahabad also held that the proceedings before the Collector were vitiated and the orders dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Collector were liable to be set aside as the Collector had not exercised his powers under Rule 7(3)(C) of U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1997'). However, in his orders dated 12.05.2015, the Board of Revenue held that as the plots were situated on a Link Road, therefore, the market value of the plots and the stamp duty to be paid on sale deeds dated 15.06.2013 had to be determined at the rates fixed for agricultural plots adjacent to Link Roads. The order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue in Stamp Appeal No. 1217/2014-15 has been challenged by the State of U.P. in Writ C- No. 68709 of 2015 and the order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue in Stamp Appeal No. 1218/2014-15 has been challenged by the State of U.P. in Writ C- No. 68716 of 2015.