- (1.) Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma assisted by Shri Namit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
(2.) The petitioners are vendees in the sale-deed dated 20.10.2004. The plots purchased through the aforesaid sale-deed were recorded as agricultural plots in the revenue records and stamp duty was paid on the said sale-deed accordingly. The Sub-Registrar-I, Jhansi submitted a report dated 25.10.2004 stating that the plots were adjacent to road and residential houses were constructed in front of the said plots. It was also stated in the report that electricity and water supply facilities were available in the area and thus the market value of the property was to be calculated and petitioners were liable to pay stamp duty at rates applicable for residential plots and, therefore, sale-deed dated 20.10.2004 was insufficiently stamped. On the aforesaid report of the Sub-Registrar-I, Jhansi, Case No. 7/2004-05 under Section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered before the Collector, Jhansi, i.e., respondent No. 3, against the petitioners. The petitioners were issued a show cause notice in the case and in response to the show cause notice, submitted their reply stating that the plots were agricultural in nature and were also being used for the said purpose. It was stated by the petitioners that the plots were recorded as agricultural plots in the relevant revenue records and the market value of the plots and the requisite stamp duty had to be determined accordingly. However, a perusal of the objections filed by the petitioner shows that they had not denied that the plots were adjacent to residential plots. The Collector, Jhansi vide his order dated 17.7.2006, relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar dated 25.10.2004 regarding the location of the plots held that there was a deficiency in payment of stamp duty on the sale-deed dated 20.10.2004. In his order dated 17.7.2006, the Collector held that though the plots were being used for agricultural purpose but because of their location, the market value of the plots was three times the rate fixed for agricultural plots and stamp duty had to be paid accordingly. The aforesaid order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the Collector, Jhansi was challenged by the petitioner under Section 56(1) of the Act, 1899 by filing Stamp Revision No. 21 of 2005-06 before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Commissioner'), which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his judgement and order dated 3.8.2007. The orders dated 17.7.2006 passed by the Collector and 3.8.2007 passed by the Commissioner have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the plots were recorded as agricultural in the revenue records and were admittedly being used for agricultural purposes, therefore the market value of the plots and consequential stamp duty to be paid on the sale-deed dated 20.10.2004 were to be calculated on the rates fixed for agricultural plots. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, as stamp duty was payable on the basis of the nature and character of the plot existing on the date of transaction, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed an error of law apparent on the face of record by determining the market value of the plots considering their future potential because of their location. It has been further contended by counsel for the petitioners that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had also erred in law in mechanically relying on the report dated 25.10.2004 submitted by the Sub-Registrar inasmuch as the aforesaid report was an ex-parte report and relevant only for the purpose of making a reference under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 and could not have been relied upon to determine the market value of the plots and the stamp duty liable to be paid on the sale-deed dated 20.10.2004. It was contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioners had filed applications before respondent Nos. 2 and 3 praying for inspection of plots by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 so that the nature and character as well as the market value of the plots could be ascertained by the Collector independent of the report of Sub-Registrar, but respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to take note of the application of the petitioners and the failure by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to inspect the plots vitiates the impugned orders dated 3.8.2007 and 17.7.2006. In support of his contention, counsel for petitioners has relied on the following judgements :- (a) Nar Singh Das Agrawal Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2006 (101) RD 763, (b) Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2000 (3) AWC 2587, (c) Smt. Neelam Gupta Vs. Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur and Others, 2007 (102) RD 147, (d) Sarvahitkarini Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2005 (99), RD 762, (e) Shri Sumati Nath jain Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2016 (2) ALJ 292, (f) Smt. Vijaya Jain Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2016 (3) ALJ 278, (g) Smt. Janki Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2017 (4) ALJ 515, (h) Super Infraheights (A Partnership Firm) through its Partner and Another Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Tax and Registratiion and Others, 2017 (5) ALJ 28, (i) Smt. Somlata Tanwar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2017 (5) ALJ 171; (j) Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2005 (98) RD 511;