VINEET MITTAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arjun Singhal, counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no. 3 had committed an error of law apparent on the face of record by merely relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar while recording a finding regarding the location of the property and while determining its market value in as much as the report was prepared prior to the institution of the case and was relevant only for making a reference under Sec. 47A(1) (d) of the Act, 1899. It has been further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that as the plots were recorded as agricultural plots in the revenue records, therefore, the stamp duty on the sale deed dated 28.3.2013 had to be determined on the circle rates fixed for agricultural plots and not on circle rates fixed for residential plots. It was also argued by the counsel for the petitioner that no spot inspection was made by the Collector under Rule 7(3)(c) of Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1997) before passing the order dated 3.10.2013. Rebutting the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel has argued that from the exemplar annexed with the counter affidavit, it was evident that the market value of the plots was correctly determined by the Collector in his order dated 3.10.2013. It has been argued by the Standing Counsel that in view of the aforesaid, it is not a fit case for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and also perused the records.