KUSUM LATA JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Visnhu Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The property in question was jointly owned by Sri Arvind Kumar Jaiswal, the husband of the petitioner and Sri Yogendra Pratap Jaiswal, the brother of the husband of the petitioner and was being used for residential purposes as there existed a room, garage and a verandah. Sri Yogendra Pratap Jaiswal sold his portion to the petitioner by means of a sale-deed dated 24.2.1994 as per prescribed residential rates, as applicable as per the circle rates fixed by the authority. It is alleged that the entire house including the open area was being used for residential purposes at the time when the sale-deed was executed and that no part thereof was being used for commercial purposes. It transpires that the Sub-Registrar submitted a report alleging that since the land was adjacent to a National Highway, the land had a potential value for being used for commercial purposes and therefore, commercial rates should be made applicable and recommended initiation of proceedings under Section 33/47A of the Indian Stamp Act. Based on the said report, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for imposition of deficiency of stamp duty. It further transpires that the Tehsildar submitted a report indicating that 3/4th area in question was being used for residential purposes as there existed a house and that on this portion residential rates should be made applicable and on 1/4th area of the land commercial rates should be made applicable in as much as the petitioner is installing a weighbridge.

(3.) The Additional District Magistrate (F & R) agreed with the report of the Tehsildar and calculated the value of the land, calculating 3/4th of the land on residential rates and 1/4th portion of the land on commercial rates and, upon calculation, imposed a deficiency of stamp duty amounting to Rs. 1,52,424/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a revision which was dismissed. The petitioner, therefore, has filed the present writ petition.