Court No. - 24 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 3839 of 2010 Petitioner :- Chandrakant Tripathi S/O Lalji Tripathi Respondent :- Commissioner Allahabad Region Allahabad & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Pt. S. Chandra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
Heard Sri Pt. S. Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
Pt. S. Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner, after paying the stamp duty as per circle rate, had purchased
plot Nos. 326 area 0-7-10 and 327 area 0-7-10 15 viswa situate at
village Jogapur, Tahsil Sadar, District Pratapgarh as agricultural land
vide sale deed dated 24.1.2004. After one year i.e. on 12.5.2005, Sub-
Registrar submitted an ex parte report regarding deficiency by saying
that future potential of land is abadi. On the basis of the said report
dated 12.5.2005, the Assistant Inspector General (Registration),
referred the matter to the Collector (Stamp), Pratapgarh, under Section
47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Notice was issued and in response
thereof, the petitioner submitted his objection. The Collector,
Pratapgarh, vide order dated 6.6.2007, directed the petitioner to pay the
deficiency of the stamp duty. Against the order dated 6.6.2007, the
petitioner filed an appeal under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act
before the Commissioner, Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad. The
Commissioner, Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad, vide order dated
3.6.2010, dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner
preferred the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the nature
of land was agricultural land and on the basis of future potential, the
stamp duty cannot be imposed.
Pt. S. Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the plot
in question is agricultural land and the District Magistrate has neither
converted the nature of land nor the District Magistrate has passed any
order under Section 143 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and as such, without
conversion of land without compliance of Section 143 of the Act, the
excess of duty of stamp cannot be imposed and the principle of future
potential of land does not permit to realize the excess stamp duty. In
support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments of this
Court rendered in the case of Surendra Singh and another Versus
State of U.P. and others [2009 (27) LCD 442].
Prima facie, a case for interim relief is made out.
Admit.
Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is accorded eight weeks’ time
to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next four
weeks.
List immediately thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the
orders dated 3.6.2010 and 6.6.2007 passed the Commissioner,
Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad and District Magistrate, Pratapgarh,
respectively, shall be kept in abeyance.
Order Date :- 8.7.2010
Ajit/-