- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 18. 10. 2004 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Jhansi (respon dent No. 3) and 6. 1. 2005 passed by Commissioner, Jhansi Division (respondent No. 2), the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said orders whereby the respondents have determined the market value of the property in question pur chased by the petitioners to be Rs. 17,74,000 on which the deficiency of stamp to the tune of Rs. 1,11,900 has also been determined and the petitioners have been required to pay the same alongwith a penalty of Rs. 10,000 and 1. 5% monthly interest on the entire amount from the date of execution of the sale deed.
(2.) THE petitioners, Anil Kumar Jain and Satish Chandra Kohli have purchased land at plots No. 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1659, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663 and 1664 measuring, in total area 0. 887 hectare situated at Village Raksa, Tahsil and District Jhansi vide sale deed dated 12. 4. 2004 for consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- though paid stamp duty at thrice the circle rate determined by the Collector. THE Sub-Registrar before whom the document was executed referred it under Section 47-Aof the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") observing that the correct market value has not been shown in the document. A notice was issued by respondent No. 3 on 10. 5. 2004 which was replied by the petitioners on 29. 5. 2004. THE respondent No. 3 passed order on 18. 10. 2004 observing that the land is appurtenant to Abadi and has immediate potential for residential user and, therefore, is liable to be stamped at the rate prescribed for residential land in the area and, therefore, required the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,11,900 towards deficiency of stamp duty alongwith penalty of Rs. 10,000 and interest at the rate of 1. 5% monthly from the date of execution of the document. THE petitioners preferred revision under Section 56 but the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 6. 1. 2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the market value of the land in question has been increased and the demand of alleged deficiency in stamp duty has been raised only on the ground that the land has immediate potential of residential user though it is not in dispute that the land in question presently is being used for agricultural purposes and has not been de clared as Abadi under Section 143 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the" 1951 Act" ). He further contended that at the time of the execu tion of the land as well as even thereafter it is continuously being used for agricul tural purposes and, therefore, the stamp duty imposed upon the petitioners is wholly illegal, based on conjectures and surmises, and even otherwise contrary to law. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court in Hajari Lal Sahu v. State of U. P. and others, 2004 (96) RD 368, Ram Khelawan v. State of U. P. and another, 2005 (98) RD 511 and Aniruddha Kumar and another v. C. C. R. A. , U. P. and another, 2000 (91) RD 566. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submitted that it was men tioned in the sale deed also that the land is situated near Abadi and this fact was not in dispute, therefore, it has rightly been found by the authorities concerned that the land has higher market value and stamp duty was payable at the rate applicable to Abadi land and not to agricultural land. He, thus, submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record committed by the respondents and the writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard Sri Narendra Mohan assisted by Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, Advocates for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record as well as the various authorities cited at the Bar in support of rival submissions. The facts which are not in dispute are that the land in question is an agricultural land, registered as such in the revenue records and there was no declaration under Section 143 of 1951 Act, of the said land as Abadi either on the date of execution of sale deed or even thereafter and even till the date of filing of writ petition. The land is situated near Jhansi-Shivpuri road and it is about 60 meters away from the said road but adjacent to Abadi. The site map is appended to the sale deed (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) showing that a number of agricultural plots around plots in question are also agricultural land. In these circum stances it has to be seen as to whether a person can be required to pay addi tional stamp duty on the ground that the valuation on which he has paid stamp duty is not correct. From both the orders passed by the respondents No. 3 and 2 respectively it is evident that the sole reason assigned by them for determining market value of the land in question as 'residential land' is that it is adjacent to Abadi and has immediate potential of user as residential land. Another aspect which has been referred in both the orders are that the land in question has been purchased by two persons belong to different families, therefore, it appears to have been purchased for residential user though the sale deed has been regis tered showing it as an agricultural land.;