D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner had purchased 500 square meters of land out of plot No. 412/0/15-0 situated in Phulpur town area, Allahabad under registered sale deed on 1st May. 1992, setting forth Rs. 50.000 as market value of the property. Proceeding was initiated by the Collector for determining the market value of the property under Section 47A, read with Section 33 of the Stamp Act. By an order dated 8th February. 1993. the Collector had held that the market value was Rs. 1,79.970 and, therefore, the stamp duty payable was Rs. 16.240 and directed the payment of the difference by the petitioner. A revision being Stamp Revision No. 111 of 1993-94 was preferred by the petitioner. By an order dated 17th January, 1996. the revision was dismissed. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge in this petition.
(2.) Pointing out from the impugned orders, Mr. N. D. Kesari, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the revenue records, the land was recorded as agricultural land with bhumadhari interest. He also points out that the boundary of the land shows that the land surrounding the disputed plot are agricultural lands. Unless there is a declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act. according to him. the character of the said land cannot be treated to be residential (abadi) even for the purpose of determining the market value of the land for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. Therefore, according to him, the valuation of the land on the ground that the land is situated within town area and that it is in close proximity of residential area the land is to be treated with the potential of the residential plot, is wholly erroneous, misconceived and, therefore, cannot be sustained. According to him. it is the value as on the date of transfer that has to be calculated and not the future potential of the land that can be taken into account. He next contends that the land being agricultural land, the valuation is to be determined according to Rule 341 of the Stamp Rules and not otherwise. Since the valuation set forth is more than the value that could be determined under Rule 341, there was no authority or jurisdiction on the Collector or any other authority under Section 47A, read with Section 33 of the Stamp Act to make a reference. Therefore, according to him, the proceeding is wholly without Jurisdiction and void. According to him, it is only when the market value is less than the minimum value as provided in Rule 341, only then a reference could be made either under Section 33 or under Section 47A and not otherwise and as such, the reference is bad and, therefore, on such a reference the Collector could not have assumed Jurisdiction. He then contends that even then while calculating the market value, the Collector did not take into account any materials for the purpose of determination thereof. It is only on a presumption that the land is a residential plot and that the land in the area are to be determined on the circle rate, which is Rs. 300. per square metre. Therefore, this is perverse and not based on any material. According to him. in view of Rule 349, read with Section 47A of the Stamp Act. the market value could have been determined on various factors. But here, no such factor having been taken into consideration, the valuation is based on no material. He further contends this as an alternative submission and not his primary submission. He next contends that the Collector had not taken into account the materials placed on record, particularly the affidavit and the revenue records produced by him. He contends that the revlsional authority has also not gone into all these questions and had cursorily affirmed the order of the learned Collector. Therefore, the same suffers from same perversity as that of the order of the Collector. Therefore, the petition should be allowed and the impugned orders should be set aside.
(3.) Mr. Sanjay Goswami, learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that Rule 341 is a guideline and only to be taken assistance as a guiding factor. It is binding neither on the parties nor on the .Collector. On the other hand, according to him. it is a provision, which is provided as a guiding factor for the registering authority to determine if the amount is less than the minimum value then only the necessity of a reference under Section 47A sub-section (1) shall arise. It has no other utility. It is only a guiding factor to determine that the market value has not been correctly stated so as to enable the registering authority to satisfy itself that this is a case fit under Section 47A, sub-section (1). It has no other utility. Therefore, it cannot have any application at the time when the market value is determined after the reference is made. According to him, when a reference is made, the market value has to be determined according to Rule 341, read with Section 47A of the Stamp Act. Thus, two provisions according to him provide that for determining the market value, the Collector has to take into account various factors as provided in the said section and the rule respectively, including Rule 348. which provides for prescription of circle rate being average rate of the particular area. But none of these factors are conclusive and binding but are factors which ought to have taken into account for the purpose of determining the market value. He further contends that as on the date of transfer, the valuation has to be determined. Though the future potential may not be taken into account but the potential of the land as on the date of transfer can also be a relevant consideration for determining the market value. He then contends that whether the land is residential area or agricultural plot, is wholly immaterial. The value of the land is determined on the basis of its utility as on the date of transfer having regard to the various factors as discussed by him in the course of his submission. It will not make any difference if the land is agricultural or a residential plot in order to determine the market value having regard to the various factors, which ought to have taken into consideration in so determination. He then contends that there are decisions which points out that the market value is to be determined on the basis of the materials available to the Collector having regard to the various factors referred to by him. He also submits that the land is situated within a residential area and that the area of the land that has been purchased does show that it was for the purpose of using as a residential plot. That apart, the land being situated within the town area and being very small though agricultural but the correct usage will be a determining factor even though there was no declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act for determining the valuation. Whether there is a declaration or not, is, according to him. immaterial for the purpose of determination of the correct market value under Section 47A of the Stamp Act. On these grounds, he prays that the petition be dismissed.;