- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. The petitioner had purchased share in certain plots of agricultural land measuring. 3918 Hectare vide registered sale deed dated 8. 6. 2001. According to the petitioner, the sale consideration paid was Rs. 8,33,332. However, since as per the existing circle rate the valuation of the said agricul tural plot was Rs. 15,06,700 hence the stamp duty on the aforesaid valuation was paid by the petitioner. Subsequently on 1. 4. 2002 the circle rates of severai villages for the purposes of payment of stamp duty had been revised. Then on 3. 8. 2002 the Additional Collector served a notice on the petitioner stating that the valuation of the property purchased by him was to the tune of Rs. 46,98,000 and thus there was deficiency of Rs. 3,13,100 in payment of stamp duty. The peti tioner submitted his reply. However, by order dated 31. 1. 2003, the Additional Collector held that the instrument was deficiently stamped by Rs. 3,13,100. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commis sioner, Agra Division, Agra, which has also been dismissed by his order dated 20. 10. 2003. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri V. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. From the record, it is clear that as per the notification dated 5. 11. 1999 issued by the Collector, Agra the rate fixed for the irrigated agricultural plots was Rs. 40,00,000 - per Hectare for Wlage Basain, where the property in question is situated, Although in the said notification the rates for unirrigated as well as residential areas for all other villages have been mentioned but for the village Basain the rate for unirrigated and residential plots has not been mentioned. The impugned orders have been passed on the basis of some inspection report submitted by the Deputy Collector, according to which, in and around the plot in question there are hotels and other commercial activities going or However, it is not disputed by the respondents that the plot in question is being used for agricultural purpose and not for commercial or residential purpose. Even in the Khatauni, the land in question has been shown as being used for agricultural purpose.
(3.) MERELY because a plot of land may have potential of being used for com mercial purpose in future, the valuation for the purpose of determination of stamp duty cannot be fixed at such rate which may be for commercial or residential purpose. Stamp duty is charged on the value of the transaction and not on the valuation which it may acquire in future because of the land surrounding it is in commercial use. In the present case, it has not been found that the plot of land is being used for any other purpose than agriculture purpose and the stamp duty has been paid on the valuation as has been fixed by the Collector at the time when the transaction had taken place. As such, the same cannot be said to be unjustified nor can the stamp duty be levied on the basis of subsequent notification where by the valuation for the purpose of payment of stamp duty has been increased. Accordingly, the orders passed by the authorities below imposing additional stamp duty cannot be sustained and are thus liable to be quashed.;