Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the stamp authorities in a proceeding under Section 47-A(3) of Indian Stamp Act, as is applicable in the State of U.P. On a report submitted by the Sub Registrar dated 18.06.2003, the sale deed dated 22.05.2001, executed in the name of the petitioner, was impounded stating therein that the land in plot no.429, 434 and 499 were being used for holding a weekly local market in the name of "Deochara Bazar" on scheduled days i.e. Thursday and Sunday. In the 'Khasra', there was an entry of "Deochara Bazar", the sale at agricultural rate shown in the sale deed was an effort to evade the stamp duty. The petitioner filed his objection and denied the assertion for the land being used for commercial purpose. The Tehsildar submitted a report and also proved his report in his oral examination. He proved that the land in question was being used for commercial purpose, but could not mention as to who was the owner thereof.
(2.) It was further found that in Gram Deochara, the Collector, Bareilly had fixed rates in three categories namely residential, nonresidential and agricultural. The plot in question namely plot no.429 was adjacent to 'abadi'. Along with the report, the 'khasra' of 1396, 1404 and 1408 fasali were filed wherein against plot no.429 there was an entry of 'Bazar'. In 'Khatauni' of 1408 fasali, entry of 'abadi' was found in the relevant column. The Collector, Bareilly having considered the Tehsildar report and the objections taken by the petitioner had opined that there was not sufficient evidence to hold that the land in question in plot no.429 was being used for holding weekly "Deochara Bazar", but there was sufficient evident to hold that it was a non-agricultural land. It was further recorded that even from the admission of the petitioner itself "Deochara Bazar" was being run in plot no.434 which was adjacent to the plot no.429. It was, therefore, recorded that the land in question was near 'abadi' and was being used for non-agricultural purposes on the date of execution of the sale deed. The rates for 'abadi' as fixed by the Collector, Bareilly were taken into consideration for assessment of market value and imposition of deficit stamp duty.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging these findings, submits that there was no justification for treating the land in question as 'abadi' merely on the basis of revenue entries. He further submits that circle rates fixed by the Collector could not be made basis for assessment of market value. The land in question was lying vacant at the time of inspection and no construction was existing therein. There was, therefore, no justification for treating it as 'abadi' land. Reliance is placed upon the judment of this Court in the case of Dukhi Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2013 6 ADJ 622.;