# Assembly of God North India Balrampur & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 692
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1001107 of 2007
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/assembly-of-god-north-india-balrampur-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48228
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - Deficit stamp duty - stamp
duty is payable on the 'market value' of
the property & not on the 'circle rate' -
stamp duty is payable on consideration
paid or "market value" of the property,
whichever is greater - Determination of
Market Value of property - Market value of
the property has to be determined with
reference to the use to which the land is
capable reasonably of being put to,
immediately or in the proximate future -
possibility of the land becoming available
in the immediate or near future for better
use and enjoyment reflects upon the
potentiality of the land - potential has to
be assessed with reference to the date of
the execution of the instrument - use to
which land in the area had been put is a
material consideration - Collector would
be within jurisdiction in referring to
exemplars which have a bearing on the
true market value of property which is
required to be assessed (Para 27, 28 )

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 27 -
Uttar
Pradesh
Stamp
(Valuation
of
Property) Rules, 1997, Rule 3, 4,5, 6 -
Facts affecting duty to be fully & truly set
forth in instrument - duty is cast upon the
parties
to
a
deed
to
truly
set
forth/mention
in
instrument,
the
consideration, if any, and all other facts
and
circumstances
affecting
the
chargeability of any instrument with duty
- in case of instruments relating to
immovable property chargeable with an
ad valorem duty, the duty is payable on
the true value of the property and not on
the value set forth in the instrument (Para
20 )

Petitioner-society purchased a land & paid
stamp duty on a sale consideration of Rs.24
Lakhs - Deputy Registrar found that the land
purchased had commercial use, for which stamp
duty ought to have been paid on commercial
rate, whereas the stamp duty was paid at
agricultural rate of the land petitioners' society
in his reply submitted that nature of the land in
3 All. The Assembly of God North India Balrampur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
693
question was agricultural land and, therefore,
the stamp duty on commercial rate was not
payable - After reply, Collector (Stamp) himself
along with Area Lekhpal visited the land - It was
found that the petitioner-society had purchased
the land for housing purposes - However, this
fact was not clearly mentioned in the sale deed
- Collector (Stamp) found that on adjacent land,
residential/commercial buildings were standing
& the land was adjacent to the main Public
Works Department Road - collector held that
the stamp duty ought to have been paid
considering the future use of the land & thus
directed petitioner-society to make payment of
the deficit stamp duty with penalty along with
interest @1.5% per month from the date of
execution of the sale deed - Held - it is
admitted case of the petitioners that they had
bought the land not for agricultural purposes,
but for household (Grihasti) purposes and in
fact within a few months, they started
construction of the houses on the said land -
Collector (Stamp) determined the true market
value of the property after considering the
relevant factors - No error in the impugned
order

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2015
(2) ESC 819 (All) (FB)

## Text

692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sending the parties into another orbit of
litigation. Interests of justice will be served
by deciding the matter finally and bring the
controversy to a litigative rest. The
petitioner has long superannuated from
service, relief of reinstatement in service
cannot be granted at this stage. In view of
the indictment of the petitioner on the first
charge, which is a major misconduct, the
petitioner cannot get away scot free. The
appropriate relief in this case would be to
grant 40% backwages to the petitioner.
However all other terminal dues shall be
paid without deduction.

21.

The
Managing
Director,
UPSRTC, is commanded to ensure that the
aforesaid benefits is disbursed to the
petitioner or his legal heirs within a period
of four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order downloaded from the
official website of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad.

22. The writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2022)03ILR A692
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 1001107 of 2007

The
Assembly
of
God
North
India
Balrampur & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Dhruv Mathur, D.M. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - Deficit stamp duty - stamp
duty is payable on the 'market value' of
the property & not on the 'circle rate' -
stamp duty is payable on consideration
paid or "market value" of the property,
whichever is greater - Determination of
Market Value of property - Market value of
the property has to be determined with
reference to the use to which the land is
capable reasonably of being put to,
immediately or in the proximate future -
possibility of the land becoming available
in the immediate or near future for better
use and enjoyment reflects upon the
potentiality of the land - potential has to
be assessed with reference to the date of
the execution of the instrument - use to
which land in the area had been put is a
material consideration - Collector would
be within jurisdiction in referring to
exemplars which have a bearing on the
true market value of property which is
required to be assessed (Para 27, 28 )

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 27 -
Uttar
Pradesh
Stamp
(Valuation
of
Property) Rules, 1997, Rule 3, 4,5, 6 -
Facts affecting duty to be fully & truly set
forth in instrument - duty is cast upon the
parties
to
a
deed
to
truly
set
forth/mention
in
instrument,
the
consideration, if any, and all other facts
and
circumstances
affecting
the
chargeability of any instrument with duty
- in case of instruments relating to
immovable property chargeable with an
ad valorem duty, the duty is payable on
the true value of the property and not on
the value set forth in the instrument (Para
20 )

Petitioner-society purchased a land & paid
stamp duty on a sale consideration of Rs.24
Lakhs - Deputy Registrar found that the land
purchased had commercial use, for which stamp
duty ought to have been paid on commercial
rate, whereas the stamp duty was paid at
agricultural rate of the land petitioners' society
in his reply submitted that nature of the land in
3 All. The Assembly of God North India Balrampur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
693
question was agricultural land and, therefore,
the stamp duty on commercial rate was not
payable - After reply, Collector (Stamp) himself
along with Area Lekhpal visited the land - It was
found that the petitioner-society had purchased
the land for housing purposes - However, this
fact was not clearly mentioned in the sale deed
- Collector (Stamp) found that on adjacent land,
residential/commercial buildings were standing
& the land was adjacent to the main Public
Works Department Road - collector held that
the stamp duty ought to have been paid
considering the future use of the land & thus
directed petitioner-society to make payment of
the deficit stamp duty with penalty along with
interest @1.5% per month from the date of
execution of the sale deed - Held - it is
admitted case of the petitioners that they had
bought the land not for agricultural purposes,
but for household (Grihasti) purposes and in
fact within a few months, they started
construction of the houses on the said land -
Collector (Stamp) determined the true market
value of the property after considering the
relevant factors - No error in the impugned
order

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2015
(2) ESC 819 (All) (FB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed impugning the orders dated 29.9.2006
and 9.1.2007 passed by the Collector
(Stamp), Balrampur and Commissioner,
Devipatan Division, Gonda under the
provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
(for short 'the Act)

2. Petitioner no.1 claims to be a
registered society under the provisions of
the West Bengal Societies Registration Act,
1961 having its registered office at 18 Ride
Street, Kolkata, West Bengal. It is a society
formed by the Pentecostal believers. The
object of the society is to promote
education at all levels for the children of all
communities of India through schools,
existing institutions and adult literacy
programmes.

3.

The
petitioner-society
had
purchased a land comprised in Gata
Nos.497 and 498, area 0.408 hectares
situated at Village Amaya Deveria, Pargana
Utraula, District Balrampur vide sale deed
dated 6.1.2006. Petitioner-society paid
stamp duty on a sale consideration of Rs.24
Lakhs.

4. Deputy Registrar, Utraula in his
report dated 28.2.2006 said that the land
purchased by the petitioner-society had
commercial use, for which the rate was
fixed at Rs.5,400/- per Sq. M., whereas the
stamp duty was paid at agricultural rate of
the land i.e. Rs.3,50,000/- per acre. Total
stamp duty of Rs.1,91,000/- was paid by
the petitioners' society.

5. On 13.2.2006, spot inspection of
the land in question was made and it was
found that on north of the land, there was a
house of one Izharul Hasan and on the
south,
house
of
Pankaj
was
being
constructed and on west, after the pathway,
houses of Raza Pajtan and Israt Husain
were constructed. 50 Meters away from the
land in question, petrol pump and National
Modern Public Junior High School were
situated.

6. Considering the use of the land, it
was said that the stamp duty ought to have
been paid on commercial rate. However, by
concealing the material facts, deficit stamp
duty of Rs.3,12,360/- was paid. On the
basis
of
the
aforesaid
report,
after
impounding the sale deed, a notice was
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issued for payment of the deficit stamp
duty of Rs.3,12,360/- to the petitionersociety.

7. The petitioners' society in his reply
submitted that the land in question was
being used for agricultural purposes. There
was Bore-well situated on the land. The
stamp duty was paid at Rs.24 Lakhs,
whereas the sale consideration was only
Rs.23,45,000/-. It was said that nature of
the land in question was agricultural land
and,
therefore,
the
stamp
duty
on
commercial rate was not payable by the
petitioner-society. The petitioner-society
had submitted khasra for 1413 Fasli in
respect of the land in question showing
land being used for agricultural purposes.

8. After the above reply, Collector
(Stamp) himself along with Area Lekhpal
visited the land in question on 11.8.2006. It
was found that the petitioner-society had
purchased the land for housing purposes.
However, this fact was not clearly
mentioned in the sale deed. Collector
(Stamp) also noted that at the time when
the land was purchased, it was said that the
land
would
be
used
for
household
(Grihasti) purposes, but at the time of
inspection, construction activities of houses
were being carried out.

9. Collector (Stamp) also found that on
adjacent
land,
residential/commercial
buildings were standing. The land is adjacent
to the main Public Works Department Road.
It was said that the stamp duty ought to have
been paid considering the future use of the
land and the petitioner-society got the sale
deed registered by concealing the important
facts.

10. In view thereof, the Collector
(Stamp) passed the impugned order dated
29.9.2006 directing the petitioner-society to
make payment of the deficit stamp duty of
Rs.3,12,360/- with penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-
along with interest @1.5% per month from
the date of execution of the sale deed.

11. Aggrieved by the said order
passed by the Collector (Stamp), petitionersociety filed an appeal under Section 56(1A) of the Act before the Divisional
Commissioner.
The
Divisional
Commissioner vide impugned order dated
9.1.2007 dismissed the appeal and affirmed
the order passed by the Collector (Stamp).
However, the penalty was reduced from
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-

12. Sri Dhruv Mathur, learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
for the purposes of payment of stamp duty,
nature of the land at the time of execution
of the sale deed is the relevant factor. The
future use of the land cannot be considered
for payment of the stamp duty. He has
further submitted that the land was being
used for agricultural purposes. There was a
Bore-well on the land. In the relevant
khasra also, the land was used for
agricultural purposes and, therefore, the
levy of stamp duty considering its futuristic
use, is wholly untenable and the two orders
passed by the stamp authorities are liable to
be quashed.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that all true and
correct facts were disclosed in the sale
deed. It was mentioned that the land would
be used for household (Grihasti) purposes.
The sale consideration i.e. Rs.23,45,000/-
was less than the amount i.e. Rs.24 Lakhs,
on which stamp duty was paid. It is,
therefore,
submitted
that
the
finding
recorded by the two authorities that true
and correct facts were not disclosed in the
3 All. The Assembly of God North India Balrampur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
695
sale deed, are not correct. He has also
submitted that since the petitioner is using
the land for housing purposes, it would not
determine the stamp duty payable inasmuch
as when the petitioner-society bought the
land, it was being used for agricultural
purposes only, and the petitioner had paid
the stamp duty accordingly on the sale
consideration as per the Rules prescribed
for the agricultural land.

14. On the other hand, Sri Rishi Raj,
leaned counsel representing the State has
supported the two orders passed by the
stamp authorities. He has submitted that for
the purposes of payment of stamp duty,
relevant factor is the market value of the
property.

15. Under Section 27 of the Act read
with Rules, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Uttar
Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property)
Rules, 1997 ( for short ''Rules, 1997'), the
duty is cast upon the parties to a deed to set
forth/mention
in
instrument,
the
consideration, if any, and all other facts and
circumstances affecting the chargeability of
any instrument with duty on the amount of
the duty with which it is chargeable.

16. Learned counsel representing for
the State has also submitted that under
Section 27(2) of the Act, instrument relating
to an immovable property chargeable with ad
valorem duty on the value of the property
requires setting forth of various factors or
may be prescribed under the Rules, 1997.
The stamp duty is payable on the "market
value" of the property and not on the circle
rate fixed by the Collector under Rule 4 of
the Rules, 1997. The Collector fixes the
minimum value under Rule 4 and Article 23
of Schedule I-B of the Act. Article 23 of
Schedule I-B of the Act provides that stamp
duty is payable on amount or value of the
consideration paid or "market value" of the
property, whichever is greater.

17. Learned counsel representing for
the State has also submitted that location is
one of the relevant factor for assessing the
marker value of the property. He has drawn
attention of this Court to the report dated
28.2.2006 and 1.8.2006 of the Deputy
Registrar and Collector (Stamp), which have
been placed on record along with counter
affidavit to submit that the land in question
had commercial use when it was purchased
and in fact the same was being used for
commercial purpose i.e. construction of
houses
by
the
petitioner-society.
The
petitioner did not purchase the land for
agricultural purposes, but had purchased the
land for housing purposes and, therefore, the
stamp duty was to be paid on the rate fixed
for commercial purpose of the land.

18. Learned counsel representing the
State has further submitted that petitioner did
not mention clearly that the land was being
purchased for housing purposes, but it was said
that it was for household (Grihasti) purposes.
He has, therefore, submitted that there is no
substance in the submissions of learned counsel
for the petitioner that all true and correct facts
were disclosed in the sale deed. He has also
submitted that the penalty could have been
imposed four times of the deficit amount of
stamp duty paid, but the Collector (Stamp) has
been considerate in imposing only One Lakh
penalty. He has also submitted that the case is
not of futuristic use of the land and rather it is
concealment of material particulars by the
petitioner for the purposes of evading the stamp
duty and instead of mentioning the housing
purpose, he has mentioned household (Grihasti)
in the sale deed.

19. I have considered the submissions
advanced on behalf of the learned counsel
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the petitioners as well as by the learned
counsel representing the State and perused
the record of the writ petition.

20. Under Section 27 of the Act, it is
provided that besides consideration, all
other facts and circumstances affecting the
chargeability of any instrument with duty
are required to be truly set forth in the
instrument. Under this Section, in case of
instruments relating to immovable property
chargeable with an ad valorem duty, the
duty is payable on the true value of the
property and not on the value set forth in
the instrument. Section 27 of the Act reads
as under:-

"27. Facts affecting duty to be set
forth in instrument. --(1) The consideration
(if
any)
and
all
other
facts
and
circumstances affecting the chargeability of
any instrument with duty, or the amount of
the duty with which it its chargeable, shall
be fully and truly set forth therein.

(2) In the case of instruments
relating to immovable property chargeable
with an ad valorem duty on the value of the
property, and not on the value set forth, the
instrument shall fully and truly set forth the
annual land revenue in the case of revenue
paying land, the annual rental or gross
assets, if any, in the case of other
immovable
property
the
local
rates,
Municipal or other taxes, if any, to which
such property may be subject and any other
particulars which may be prescribed by
rules made under this Act."

21. Where it is found that an
instrument is undervalued, the procedure
has been set forth under Section 47-A of
the Act for assessing the correct stamp duty
on the instrument. Section 47-A of the Act
reads as under:-

"47-A. Under-valuation of the
instrument.--- "(1) (a) If the market value
of any property which is the subject of any
instrument, on which duty is chargeable on
the market value of the property as set forth
in such instrument, is less than even the
minimum value determined in accordance
with the rules made under this Act, the
registering officer appointed under the
Registration
Act,
1908
shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the
said Act, immediately after presentation of
such instrument and before accepting it for
registration and taking any action under
section 52 of the said Act, require the
person liable to pay stamp duty under
section 29, to pay the deficit stamp duty as
computed on the basis of the minimum
value determined in accordance with the
said rules and return the instrument for
presenting again in accordance with
section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.

(b) When the deficit stamp duty
required to be paid under clause (a), is
paid in respect of any instrument and the
instrument
is
presented
again
for
registration, the registering officer shall
certify by endorsement thereon, that the
deficit stamp duty has been paid in respect
thereof and the name and the residence of
the person paying them and register the
same.

(c)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other provisions of this
Act, the deficit stamp duty may be paid
under clause (a) in the form of impressed
stamps containing such declaration as may
be prescribed.

(d) If any person does not make
the payment of deficit stamp duty after
receiving the order referred to in clause (a)
and presents the instrument again for
3 All. The Assembly of God North India Balrampur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
697
registration, the registering officer shall,
before registering the instrument, refer the
same to the Collector, for determination of
the market value of the property and the
proper duty payable thereon."

(2) On receipt of a reference
under sub-section (1) the Collector shall,
after giving the parties a reasonable
opportunity of being heard and after
holding an inquiry in such manner as many
be prescribed by rules made under this Act,
determine the market value of the property
which is the subject of such instrument and
the proper duty payable thereon.

(3) The Collector may, suo motu,
or on a reference from any court or from
the Commissioner of Stamps or an
Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a
Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an
Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any
officer authorized by the State Government
in that behalf, within four years from the
date of registration of any instrument on
which duty is chargeable on the market
value of the property not already referred
to him under sub-section (1) call for and
examine the instrument for the purpose of
satisfying himself as to the correctness of
the market value of the property which is
the subject for of such instrument, and the
duty payable thereon and if after such
examination he has reason to believe that
market value of such property has not been
truly set forth in such instrument he may
determine the market value of such
property and the duty payable thereon:

Provided that, with the prior
permission of the State Government, an
action under this sub-section may be taken
after a period of four years but before a
period of eight years from the date of
registration of the instrument on which
duty is chargeable on the market value of
the properly.

........"

22. From the reading of Section 47-A
of the Act, it is evident that what has to be
seen is the market value of the property
and, if it is found that value of the property
mentioned in the instrument is less than
even the minimum value determined in
accordance with the rules made under this
Act, the registering officer is empowered to
impound the instrument when it is
presented for registration and require the
person liable to pay stamp duty with deficit
stamp duty as computed on the basis of the
minimum value determined in accordance
with the rules and return the instrument for
presenting again for registration.

23.
The
Collector
(Stamp)
is
empowered to determine the correct stamp
duty on receipt of reference or by suo motu.
If on inquiry and examination, the
Collector finds that the market value of the
property has not been truly set forth and the
instrument is not properly stamped, he is
empowered to order for payment of proper
duty and also for making the deficiency
good together with a penalty on an amount
not exceeding four times the amount of
deficit duty besides statutory interest 1.8%
per month.

24. The State Government in exercise
of powers under Sections 27, 47-A and 75
of the Act has framed Rules, 1997. Rule 3
of the aforesaid Rules prescribes the facts
to be set forth in an instrument relating to
immovable property chargeable with an ad
valorem duty.

25. Under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1997,
the Collector is empowered to fix minimum
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rate for value of land, construction value of
non-commercial building and minimum
rate of rent of commercial building. This
minimum value is to be fixed biennially
after taking into consideration the facts as
mentioned in the Rules.

26. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1997
provides for calculation of minimum value
of land, grove, garden and building for the
purposes of payment of the stamp duty as
may be prescribed under the said Rule.

27. A Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2015 (2) ESC 819 (All)
(FB) has held that the power of Collector to
determine the market value either on a
reference under Sub-section (1) or (2) of
Section 47-A or acting suo motu under subsection (4) was to determine the correct
market value of the property. The market
value of the property has to be determined
with reference to the use to which the land
is capable reasonably of being put to
immediately or in the proximate future. The
Collector would be within jurisdiction in
referring to exemplars which have a
bearing on the true market value of
property which is required to be assessed.
The Full Bench considered the following
questions in the said judgement:-

"(1) Whether the registering
officer can refer a document even if he does
not find that the market value of the
property as set forth in the instrument is
less than even the market value determined
in accordance with the rules made under
this Act;

(2) Whether the Collector Stamps
has power to fix the valuation of a plot on
the assumption that the same is likely to be
used for commercial purposes, and whether
the presumed future prospective use of the
land can be a criterion for valuation by the
Collector;

(3) What should be the norms for
fixing the valuation of a free-hold land viza-vis lease land;

(4) Whether the Collector can
demand stamp duty under Section 47-A of
the Stamp Act without a finding of fact that
the market value as stated in the document
is less than that which was actually agreed
upon between the parties;

(5) Whether the orders passed by
the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
can be reviewed if it is shown that the
known norms of valuation have not been
followed in the case."

28. The Full Bench while answering
Question No.2 has held that power and
jurisdiction of the Collector under Section
47-A of the Act is to determine the actual
market value of the property. The Collector
in making that determination is not bound
either by the value as described in the
instrument or for that matter, the value as
discernible on the basis of the Rules. It has
been further held that the market value of
the property has to be determined with
reference to the use to which the land is
capable reasonably of being put to
immediately or in the proximate future. The
possibility of the land becoming available
in the immediate or near future for better
use and enjoyment reflects upon the
potentiality of the land. Paragraphs 26, 27
and 28 of the said judgement which are
relevant, are extracted herein below:-

"26.The
true
test
for
determination by the Collector is the
market value of the property on the date of
the
instrument
because,
under
the
3 All. The Assembly of God North India Balrampur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
699
provisions of the Act, every instrument is
required to be stamped before or at the
time
of
execution.
In
making
that
determination, the Collector has to be
mindful of the fact that the market value of
the property may vary from location to
location and is dependent upon a large
number of circumstances having a bearing
on
the
comparative
advantages
or
disadvantages of the land as well as the use
to which the land can be put on the date of
the execution of the instrument.

27. Undoubtedly, the Collector is
not permitted to launch upon a speculative
inquiry about the prospective use to which
a land may be put to use at an uncertain
future date. The market value of the
property has to be determined with
reference to the use to which the land is
capable reasonably of being put to
immediately or in the proximate future. The
possibility of the land becoming available
in the immediate or near future for better
use and enjoyment reflects upon the
potentiality of the land. This potential has
to be assessed with reference to the date of
the execution of the instrument. In other
words, the power of the Collector cannot
be unduly circumscribed by ruling out the
potential to which the land can be
advantageously deployed at the time of the
execution of the instrument or a period
reasonably proximate thereto. Again the
use to which land in the area had been put
is a material consideration. If the land
surrounding the property in question has
been put to commercial use, it would be
improper to hold that this is a circumstance
which should not weigh with the Collector
as a factor which influences the market
value of the land.

28. The fact that the land was put
to a particular use, say for instance a
commercial purpose at a later point in
time, may not be a relevant criterion for
deciding the value for the purpose of stamp
duty, as held by the Supreme Court in State
of U.P. and others Vs. Ambrish Tandon and
another, (2012) 5 SCC 566. This is because
the nature of the user is relateable to the
date of purchase which is relevant for the
purpose of computing the stamp duty.
Where, however, the potential of the land
can be assessed on the date of the
execution of the instrument itself, that is
clearly a circumstance which is relevant
and germane to the determination of the
true market value. At the same time, the
exercise before the Collector has to be
based on adequate material and cannot be
a matter of hypothesis or surmise. The
Collector must have material on the record
to the effect that there has been a change of
use or other contemporaneous sale deeds
in respect of the adjacent areas that would
have a bearing on the market value of the
property which is under consideration. The
Collector, therefore, would be within
jurisdiction in referring to exemplars or
comparable sale instances which have a
bearing on the true market value of the
property which is required to be assessed.
If the sale instances are comparable, they
would also reflect the potentiality of the
land
which
would
be
taken
into
consideration in a price agreed upon
between a vendor and a purchaser."

29. In the present case, it is admitted
case of the petitioners that they had bought
the land in question not for agricultural
purposes, but for household (Grihasti)
purposes and in fact within a few months,
they had started construction of the houses
on the said land, which is evident from the
report of the Collector dated 11.8.2006.
The Collector (Stamp) has determined the
true market value of the property after
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
considering
the
relevant
factors
as
mentioned above in the said judgement of
Smt. Pushpa Sareen (supra).

30. Considering the aforesaid facts, I
do not find that either the Collector (Stamp)
or the Commissioner erred in determining
the true market value of the property and
accordingly the stamp duty payable on the
instrument.

31. In view thereof, the present writ
petition has no force and is hereby
dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2022)03ILR A700
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 1002033 of 1995

Arshadullah & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Akhilesh Kalra, Shyam Mohan Pradhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Arvind
Kr.
Mishra,
Dhirendra
Chaturvedi, Jitendra Prakash, Km. Pratima
Devi, Savitra V. Singh

Administration of Evacuee Property Act,
1950 - Section 27 - Evacuee Interest
(Separation) Act, 1951 - Powers of
revision of Custodian General - Section
27 empowers the Custodian General to
exercise the revisional jurisdiction at
any time either on his own motion or on
application made to him in this behalf
against
any
order
passed
by
the
Custodian - Limitation - There is no
limitation
provided
under
the
said
section - He may exercise on his own
motion or on an application made to him
in this behalf - Rider - Custodian General
should not pass an order prejudicial to
any other person without giving him
reasonable opportunity of being heard
(Para 29)

Property in question was a "composite
property" - one-third undivided share of one
Mohammad
Salamat
Ullah
Khan

who
migrated to Pakistan was declared evacuee
property while remaining 2/3rd share belonged
to the other two brothers who were nonevacuees - Competent Officer passed an order
on August 31, 1955, u/s 11 of the Evacuee
Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, vesting the
property in the Custodian - Possession of
Mohammad Salamat Ullah Khan's one-third
share in the property was delivered to
refugee Major Chandra Bhan Singh & he was
given
quasi-permanent
allotment
on
06.06.1958 - Assistant Custodian made a
proposal dated 16.08.1983 to the Custodian
for transfer of evacuee interest in favour of
the petitioners - Custodian vide his order
dated 11.10.1983 directed the transfer of
evacuee interest in favour of the petitioners -
Assistant Custodian on 28.08.1984 made a
reference to the Assistant Custodian General
praying for revision of his order on the ground
that entire facts were not placed before him,
therefore, proposal for sale of the land in
favour
of
the
petitioners
was
without
jurisdiction and against the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Major Chandra
Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan - Assistant
Custodian
General
vide
order
dated
18.1.1995
cancelled
the
orders
dated
16.08.1983 and 03.11.1983, whereby the
land was sold in favour of the petitioners on
the basis of concealment of facts - Held - By
concealment of facts petitioners in defiance
of the judgment of the Supreme Court got
the sale certificate issued in their favour in
respect of 1/3rd evacuee interest - Once the
proceedings got concluded by judgment of
the
Supreme
Court
any
subsequent
proceedings on the said issue was barred by
principle
of
res
judicata
-
petitioners'
conduct had been such which completely
disentitles them for a writ of certiorari (Para
69)