Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard the Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Singh, counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5.
(2.) A sale deed dated 12.5.2015 of a plot measuring 510 sq. meter and a building constructed on 240.5 sq. meter of the said plot was executed in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 5. In the aforesaid sale deed, it was disclosed that the building was a residential building and stamp duty was accordingly computed and paid by the respondents. Subsequently, the Sub-Registrar submitted a report dated 15.5.2015 stating that the building was occupied by the Assistant Divisional Transport Officer and consequently a reference dated 25.5.2015 under Section 47-A(1)(d) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899) was made by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration to the Collector, Pratapgarh recommending that the market value of the property and the stamp duty to be paid on the sale deed dated 12.5.2015 had to be determined on the rates fixed for commercial building and according to Rule 5(c)(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1997'). On the aforesaid report, Case No. 22 under Section 47-A(2) of the Act, 1899 was registered in the court of Collector, Pratapgarh and in the said case, show cause notice was issued to respondent nos. 2 to 5 who submitted their reply to the same. In their reply, respondent nos. 2 to 5 stated that they had not received any rent from the Assistant Divisional Transport Officer and as the building was a residential building and not a commercial building, therefore, its market value had to be determined by ascertaining the value of its construction and not on the minimum monthly rent fixed by the Collector for the area. The Collector, Pratapgarh vide his order dated 12.8.2015 rejected the defence of respondent nos. 2 to 5 and relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar held that the building was a commercial building and the market value of the property and the stamp duty to be paid on the sale deed had to be determined accordingly. In view of the aforesaid finding, the Collector determined the market value of the property by multiplying the total area of the plot i.e. 510 sq. meter with three hundred times the minimum rent fixed by the Collector for the area under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 i.e. Rs.250/- per sq. meter. Consequently the Collector, Pratapgarh held that there was a deficiency of Rs.21,67,500/- in payment of stamp duty by respondent nos. 2 to 5 and therefore directed that the aforesaid amount along with a penalty of 5% on the said amount and an interest calculated at the rate of 1.5% per month be recovered from respondent nos. 2 to 5. Against the order dated 12.8.2015 passed by the Collector, Pratapgarh, respondent nos. 2 to 5 filed Appeal No. 175/2015-16 before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as, ' CCRA') under Section 56 of the Act, 1899. The CCRA vide its order dated 30.11.2015 allowed Appeal No. 175/2015-16 and set-aside the order dated 12.8.2015 passed by the Collector on the ground that the area in which the property was situated had not been notified for offices and the building existing on the plot was not a commercial building under the Rules, 1997. In his order dated 30.11.2015, the CCRA held that there was no deficiency in payment of stamp duty on the sale deed dated 12.5.2015. The order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the CCRA in Appeal No. 175/2015-16 has been challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh in the present writ petition.
(3.) It has been argued by the Standing Counsel that the building existing on the property was occupied by the Assistant Divisional Transport Officer and the aforesaid fact was not disclosed by respondent nos. 2 to 5 in the sale deed dated 12.5.2015. It was argued that in the aforesaid circumstances, the market value of the building and the stamp duty to be paid had to be determined under Rule 5(c)(ii) of Rules, 1997 as the building was a commercial building as defined in Section 2(d) of Rules, 1997 and therefore the order dated 12.8.2015 passed by the Collector was according to law. It was further argued by the Standing Counsel that the absence of any notification declaring the area for office purposes and the nature of constructions were not relevant to determine the nature of the building, i.e. whether, the building was commercial or non-commercial. It was argued by the Standing Counsel that the actual rent paid to the petitioner was also not relevant to determine the market value of the property in as much as the building existing on the plot was a commercial building and therefore the Collector rightly determined the market value of the property applying the principle in Rule 5(c)(ii) of Rules, 1997. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the CCRA is vitiated due to consideration of irrelevant factors and is liable to be set-aside. Rebutting the arguments of the Standing Counsel, counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 argued that the constructions existing on the plot were temporary in nature and respondents did not receive any rent from the Assistant Divisional Transport Officer. It was argued by the counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 that there was no evidence on record showing that the building was let out on rent to the Assistant Divisional Transport Officer either by respondent nos. 2 to 5 or the vendors of respondent nos. 2 to 5 or they had received any rent from the Assistant Divisional Transport Officer and, therefore, the market value of the property could not have been determined treating the building to be a commercial building even though the same was occupied by the Assistant Divisional Transport Officer. On the basis of his aforesaid arguments, the counsel for respondents has argued that the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the CCRA is according to law and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.;