- (1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Commissioner exercising his jurisdiction in appeal under the Stamp Act affirming the order passed by the Collector directing additional stamp duty as payable by the petitioner. The adjudication was in relation to a sale deed registered on 5.12.2006 when the petitioner had affixed stamp duty on the basis of Collector's valuation. The Collector's valuation in relation to the property within the Municipal limits of Mansa and the valuation of Nehri land in the year 2006-07 was '15,00,000/- per acre. The petitioner filed proof of the category of land by production of the extract of the jamabandi of 2003-04 which was the last jamabandi relevant for the village and the property and it is shown as Nehri land. Subsequent Jamabandi entry of the year 2008-09 also shows that the property is Nehri land. It is not in dispute that the stamp duty already conforms to the Collector's rate. If it were to be contended that the Collector's valuation is not correct and it is undervalued in relation to any particular property, it shall be the duty of the authority that seeks to tax higher levy to show that such higher valuation exists on the basis of relevant and objective materials. The Collector and the Commissioner have merely referred to the fact that on an inspection it was found that the property was situate at the main gate of Green Valley and the show rooms are also constructed there. A subsequent user of the property in the vicinity for non-agricultural purposes by itself will not be relevant unless it is established that the property was purchased as a commercial property and there had been a suppression of actual consideration that could have passed between the parties. We must remember that the transaction of the sale deed came about in the year 2006 and if it is shown that there existed commercial use in the proximity of the property in the year 2006, and that they had also been registered at higher rates, then the action of the Collector could be justified. In all instances when the Collector's office raises issues of undervaluation, the duty is always on the State to show that the property is undervalued. There is no presumption that Collector's rate itself is not properly made. The Collector's rate is a method of reckoning for any member of public to rely on at the time of registration. Cases abound where attempts are made by transacting parties to show that the Collector's value is higher and that it should be valued lesser than that is stated in the Collector's rate. In such eventuality, Courts have held that the sale price is what a willing purchaser is willing to pay from a willing seller and there could be several factors that could dampen the market at the relevant time to show that the Collector's rate cannot be relied on. The deviation from the Collector's rate would be possible only if it is shown that Collector's valuation does not reflect the market rate. If the State that wants to contend that Collector's rate does not reflect the market rate and the market rate is even higher than the Collector's rate, the burden shall be on the State to give tangible materials to act on. It will be dangerous to allow for officials to adopt an ad hoc approach and make their own whimsical assessments of valuation even more than the Collector's rate. It will spell out scope for arbitrariness;. It shall not be permissible. Counsel for the State vehemently argues that no material was shown by the petitioner. It will be a meaningless argument to advance, when the State is bound to produce material for justification of a higher levy and to call upon the private party to show materials to substantiate that the Collector's rate is not correct. On the other hand, the Collector's rate itself is justification for a party to rely on
(2.) The impugned order of levy of additional stamp duty is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. If the amount has been collected by the State pursuant to the order, the same is directed to be refunded within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the document has been impounded, it is also directed to be returned to the party within the aforesaid period. Petition allowed.;