Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PAWAN KUMAR versus CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pawan Kumar v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Others - WRIT - C No. 30535 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 6555 (24 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the orders dated 29.5.95 passed by respondent no.3 and dated 14.5.2001 passed by respondent no.1 filed as Annexures- 11 and 13 to the writ petition.

The facts arising out of the writ petition are that the petitioner purchased the plot in question from its earlier owner Smt. Joginder Kaur wife of Sri Darshan Singh resident of village- Nautanawa, Tappa Marchwar, Pargana-Binayakpur, Tehsil-Nautanwa, district- Maharajganj by registered sale-deed dated 27.1.1993 for a valuable consideration of Rs.32,000/-. The petitioner submits that at the time of purchase of the said property the rate specified by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj for agriculture holding situate at village-Sukrauli, Tappa-Sirsia was Rs.80,000/- per acre. According to that the petitioner has paid the stamp duty. Respondent no.4 has sent a reference to the Collector, Maharajganj under Section 47-A (2) of Indian Stamps Act on the ground that the stamp duty, which has been paid by the petitioner at the time of purchase, is not sufficient. Respondent no.4 has valued the plot in question for Rs.8,08,780/- on the basis of that the plot in question is next to main road and has made a deficiency of Rs.97123/-. When the petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid order, he filed an objection on 1.4.1995 stating therein that the stamp duty has been paid according to the circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate and the nature of the land is agriculture and the same is being used for the purpose of agriculture. The petitioner submits that Tehsildar Nautanwa has given a report dated 28.10.1994 regarding the nature of the land which has been purchased by the petitioner. A specific report has been given that the said land is agriculture and it is being used for the agriculture purpose. It has also been mentioned that the said land is 2, ½ Kms. from the Sonauli bazar. Further submission has been made by the petitioner that according to the circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate has fixed the rate as Rs.60,000/- per acre at the relevant time and as the petitioner has paid the stamp duty according the said circle rate, therefore, it cannot be said that the stamp duty paid by the petitioner is deficient but the authorities below has not considered the said aspect of the matter and was pleased to direct the petitioner to pay the deficient court fee. Aggrieved by the order passed the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) dated 29.5.95 the petitioner has field a revision, which was numbered as Revision No. 273 before respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 has also not considered that the stamp duty has been paid according to the valuation fixed by the District Magistrate and the land is agriculture and is being used for the purpose of agriculture.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that finding to that effect recorded by the revisional court that the land is adjacent to the P.W.D. road is also not correct as the Tehsildar himself has given a report that it is 2, ½ Kms. from Sonauli Bazar. A finding to this effect has been recorded that the land may be used for the commercial purpose is based on no evidence. Further reliance has been placed by the petitioner that plot no. 126 which is near to the plot of the petitioner has been purchased by one Smt Champa Devi. The purchaser had filed a writ petition before this Court which was numbered as 30536 of 2001 and the said writ petition was allowed by this Court and the order was quashed vide its order dated 2.2.2006 holding therein that from the perusal of the order it is not clear that the rate of Rs.40/- per sq. ft. has been applied for determining the market value of the property in dispute. As the petitioner has already filed a circle rate issued by the Collector, Maharanganj which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition which is not disputed by the respondents. According to the circle rate, the rate of agricultural land in village Sukrauli has been shown as Rs.80,000/- per acre. The petitioner has paid stamp duty on the said rate. Further the circle rate for the residential area relating to Sub-Registrar , Tehsil Nautanwa has been shown to be only Rs.15/- or Rs.20/- per sq. ft. Further the note appended to the circle rate clearly mentions that only where the transaction deals with a plot of land of a size less than 15 decimals, it will be treated as residential and would be charged accordingly. In the present case the size of plot of land is 53 decimals and not 15 decimals, which is far less, therefore, ordinarily it could not be charged as residential plot. According to Tehsildar's report, which has also been annexed with the writ petition, it clearly mentions that the plot of land is lying vacant and there is no construction having been made and the same is being used for agricultural purpose.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and from the documents on record it is clear that the land in dispute was agricultural land on the date of sale and thereafter in view of the report of the Tehsildar. The applicability of residential rate was not at all justified. The petitioner has already paid sufficient stamp duty. In such circumstances the impugned orders dated 29.5.1999 and 14.5.2001 passed by respondents is based on no evidence and also contrary to the record. As such the same cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed.

The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

24.3.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P. No. 30535 of 2001


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.