- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 5-7-1993 and 21-12-1993, Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition.
(2.) HEARD Sri S. U. Khan, learned Coun sel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased lease-hold rights in respect of plot Nos. D-11a and C-23 to the Industrial Estate, Aligarh measuring 2605 Sq. yards with some constructions there upon from Sri N. K. Bansal who had pur chased the same from the original lease holders. The said lease are granted by the Industries Department, U. P. for 99 years. After execution of the transfer-deed and delivery of possession to the petitioner, the Sub-Registrar Koli got an impression that the market value of the property is more than Rs. eight lacs which was the value shown on the transfer-deed. Hence he sent the matter to the A. D. M. (Finance and Revenue) under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The petitioner filed objection before the A. D. M. , Finance vide Annexure-2 to the petition. The A. D. M. (finance) got the premises inspected by the Add! City Magistrate, who gave his report dated 23-4-1993 estimating the market value to be Rs. 10. 50 lacs vide Annexure-3 to the petition. However, the A. D. M. (Finance) Aligarh passed an order dated 5-7-1993 Annexure-6 to the writ petition fixing the market value to be Rs. 25. 50 lacs. Against that order the petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed by the respondent No. 1. Hence this petition. A perusal of the order of respondent No. 1 dated 21-12-1993 shows that the respondent No. 1 has taken the assumed rental value to be Rs. 7,000 per month and has observed that this rental value shall be cross checked by computing costs of land and building. The respondent No. 1 has fur ther observed that even Rs. 500 per sq. meter for lease-hold land would be a low rate. No basis for making these observations has been given by the respondent No. 1 in its order. The respondent No. 1 should have got some exemplars of other land in the vicinity which had been sold at the relevant time. The respondent No. 1 has given no basis for the observation that Rs. 5,00 per sq. meter is a low rate for lease hold land. The order of the respondent No. 1 is based on conjectures and surmises and hence can not be sustained.
(3.) THE respondent No. 1 has further observed that the transaction falls within the purview of Article 23 of Schedule-1b of the Stamp Act. Article 23 is with regard to conveyances, whereas Article 35 is a specific Article relating to leases. It is well-settled that the special law overrides the general law, and hence Article 35 will govern the case and not Article 23. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of the respon dent No. 1 dated 21- 12-1993 is quashed. The case is remanded to respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh order within three months of production of a certified copy of this order. It will be open to the petitioner to take all the arguments factual or legal which he is advised to take before the respondent No. 1. Till the decision of the Board of Revenue, the impugned order passed by this Court dated 19-2-1994 shall continue. Petition allowed. .;