Tarun Agarwala - (1.) -Heard Sri Bipin Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ghanshyam Dwivedi, the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur as well as the appellate order dated 15.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi by which deficiency of stamp duty has been imposed on the sale-deed executed by the petitioner. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner purchased agricultural land, being Khata No. 69, plot Nos. 258 and 259 measuring .649 and .331 acres respectively, by means of a registered sale-deed dated 8.5.1997. The petitioner paid stamp duty as per the rates fixed by the District Magistrate applicable for that area for agricultural land. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Sub-Registrar by a letter dated 15.5.1998, reported to the District Magistrate about the deficiency of the stamp duty on the sale-deed on the ground that the land was abutting a road, namely, Rampur-Nogoh Road and therefore, appropriate stamp duty was required to be paid. On the basis of this report, a notice under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act was issued to the petitioner to show cause why a deficiency of stamp duty along with the penalty, if any, should not be imposed upon the petitioner. Subsequently, the District Magistrate, by an order dated 15.10.2001, imposed Rs. 2,99,801 as deficiency of stamp duty and another sum of Rs. 2,980 towards deficiency of registration fee. The petitioner, filed a revision before the Commissioner, which was dismissed by an order dated 15.4.2008. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition. Admittedly the land is an agricultural land and is not an abadi land and consequently, the rates applicable to an agricultural land is required to be paid towards stamp duty. In the present case, the deficiency of stamp duty has been imposed on the ground that the land is abutting a road and is adjacent to an abadi land and that the land should be used for residential purposes and therefore, the rates applicable for residential land should be payable by the petitioner. The Collector, as well as the Commissioner has laid stress on the fact that the land has a potential value for being used for residential purposes in the future and accordingly, held that the rates applicable for residential purposes would be payable and that the rates applicable for agricultural purposes would not be payable. In my opinion, the approach adopted by the authorities was patently erroneous and without jurisdiction. In M/s. Maya Food and Vanaspati Ltd. Company v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Board of Revenue) Allahabad, 1990 (90) RD 57, the Court held that the market value of the land could not be determined with reference to the use of the land to which the buyer intends to put in use. The Court held that a buyer may intend to establish an Industrial undertaking thereon and that another buyer may intend to use it for agricultural purposes and a third person may intend to dedicate it for charitable purposes and that these different intentions of individual buyers may affect the price of each of them would be willing to pay for the property but the market value would not depend upon what each individual would offer for the property in question and that the market value would be that which a general buyer would offer and what the owner reasonably accepts for that property. the Court held that in determining the market value, the potential of the land as on the date of sale alone could be taken into account in determining the market value and that the potential value of the land that could be put in use in future could not to be taken into consideration.
(3.) IN Smt. Anasuya Singh v. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and another, 2008 (104) RD 725, the Court held that an agricultural land situate at a roadside in a semi-urban area could not be treated as commercial or residential unless that area was declared as a commercial or a residential area by the authorities. IN Kunj Behari v. State of U. P. and others, 2008 (104) RD 750, a similar view was taken by the Court. In the light of the aforesaid, the admitted position in the present case is, that the land is an agricultural land and is situated in a semi-urban area and is located adjoining an abadi area. The mere fact that the land is adjoining an abadi land will not make the agriculture land as an abadi land unless the land in question is converted into a residential land by the authorities. So long as the land is recorded as an agriculture land, the rates prescribed for agricultural land would be applicable and the authorities cannot presume that the land would be put to a different use in future. The potential value of the land in future is clearly outside the scope and ambit of the proceedings under the Stamp Act for judging the market value of the land in question. The market value of the land is required to be judged on the nature and use of the land existing on the date of the purchase of the land in question and the authorities are not required to judge the use of the land which could be put to a different use in future.;