PRAFULLA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ram Swaroop Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) IT transpires that the petitioner purchased an agricultural plot and paid stamp duty on the basis of the rates prevailing for agricultural land. Subsquently, a notice under Section 47-A/33 of the Stamp Act was issued to the petitioner to show cause why deficiency of stamp duty and penalty be not imposed upon him since in the opinion of the State, the land was liable to be assessed as residential land as it was in the proximity of an Abadi land. The prescribed authority, after considering the objections and other evidence that was brought on record held that the petitioner was liable to pay the stamp duty on the basis of rates applicable for residential land and was not liable to pay the rate for the agricultural land. The authority further observed that the land in question, no doubt was an agricultural land and that it was in the close proximity of the Abadi land, and therefore, the rate applicable for the residential land would be payable by the petitioner. The authority, while passing the order, directed the petitioner to pay the deficiency of stamp duty alongwith penalty. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal which was dismissed. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) IN P. Ram Reddy and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others, 1995 (2) SCC 503, the Supreme Court held that the question of future potential of the land in question cannot be the determinative factor for determination of the market value of the land for the purpose of stamp duty payable under the Stamp Act.