Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25420 of 2009 Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- N.K. Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
property was purchased through a sale deed dated 15.06.2005. At
the time of execution of the sale deed, the said property was
agricultural holding. Subsequently, it appears that the petitioner
got the said property declared as commercial vide order dated
23.1.2007 filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The said order
has been incorporated in the revenue record i.e. Khatauni for the
Fasli year, 1413-1418. An inspection was made by the Sub-
Registrar who submitted its report dated 31.08.2007. On the basis
of this report an order under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act
was passed declaring the deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of
Rs. 90,000/- plus Rs.4140/- and imposed penalty to the tune of
Rs.90,000/- total amounting to Rs.1,84,140/-.The petitioner
preferred stamp revision against the aforesaid order, which was
also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for filing the stamp
revision, the petitioner had deposited Rs.62,000/- which is 1/3rd of
the amount demanded.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
It is undiputed fact that at the time of execution of the sale deed,
the property in question was recorded as agricultural property and
stamp duty thereon was duly paid and the sale deed was registered.
Subsequently, after two years, the petitioner himself got the said
property declared as Commercial and raised certain construction
on the same. The Sub-Registrar made an inspection of the said
property after two years and reported that the commercial activity
was going on and on the basis of which an order under section
47-A of the Indian Stamp Act has been passed.
It is settled law that the nature of the land is to be seen at the time
of execution of the sale deed and not beyond. Subsequently, the
petitioner himself got the said land converted into commercial, but
that does not mean that at the time of execution of the sale deed,
the said land was of any commercial value. Under these
circumstances, the order passed under section 47-A of the Indian
Stamp Act as well as the order of Commissioner under section
56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be sustained and is
accordingly, quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The amount already deposited by the petitioner for preferring
revision under section 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act shall be
refunded to the petitioner within a month.
Order Date :- 6.1.2010
VS.