# Smt. Rekha Chaturvedi & Anr v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Anr

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 726
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-04-18
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rekha-chaturvedi-anr-v-chief-controlling-revenue-authority-and-anr-42575
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Stamp (Valuation of property) Rules
1997- Sale deed executed on 16.02.1993rule came into force on 15.07.1997-having
no applicability with retrospective effectwhen
land
purchased-agricultural
landwithout declaration under Section 143 of
U.P.Z.A.L.R Act-can not be treated as
Commercial
or
residential
plot-future
potentiality can not be taken into considered
for stamp duty purpose.

Held:Para-9
2 All] Smt. Rekha Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Anr.
727
The question of future potential cannot be a
factor for determining the market value of
such land for the purpose of stamp duty
payable under the stamp act. The vendee
pays the price of the land that satisfies the
venders according to the utility of the land
as on the date of transfer by the vendor. If
the land was an agricultural land, it has to
be treated as such and the valuation has to
be done accordingly. The future potential
cannot be a factor for determing market
value for payment of stamp duty under the
stamp act. In future if purchaser changes
the
utility
and
character
of
land
is
immaterial for the purpose of determining
of stamp duty.

Case Law discussed:
2011 (3) awc 3093; 2000(3) (AWC) 2587;
2012(2) AWC 1836 (SC); 2005 (98) RD 511:
2005(2) AWC 1087

## Text

726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
from 35 to 40 years. It cannot be said that
the High Court has acted arbitrarily or has
created a different class of Services for
the Subordinate Judicial Officers.

23. The contentions raised on behalf
of the petitioners, that once the Rules of
2001 have been framed in consultation
with the High Court it is not necessary to
have any further consultation with the
High Court while making amendments
therein, is also wholly misconceived. The
procedure to be followed in the matter of
framing of the original rules will have to
be
adopted
while
making
any
amendments in the same rules.

24. The contention that the Rules of
2012 have the overriding effect is also
based on complete misreading of the law
as has been explained by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of State of
Bihar (supra).

25. Now turning to the judgements
relied upon by the counsel for the
petitioners.

26. In the case of Northern India
Caterers (Private) Ltd. and another v.
State of Punjab and another it has been
laid down that repeal by implication is not
generally favoured by the Court. The well
established Rule of construction is that
when the later enactment is worded in
affirmative terms without any negative it
does not impliedly repeal the earlier.

27. In our opinion the judgment has
no application on the legal issues involved
in the facts of the case.

28. In the case of R.S. Raghunath
(supra) the Apex Court has laid down that in
absence of any express repeal of special rule,
repeal by implication cannot be inferred. There
can be no dispute with regard to the legal
proposition so laid down but the principle has
no application in the facts of the case. The
Judicial service as covered by the recruitment
rules framed under Article 234 of the
Constitution of India stand outside the field of
operation of the State Services covered by
Article 309. The judgment has therefore no
application in the facts of the case.

29. For the reasons recorded above,
this Court finds no substance in the
present writ petitions. All three petitions
are accordingly dismissed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32962 Of 2000

Smt. Rekha Chaturvedi & Anr .Petitioners
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And
Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.K. Porwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Stamp (Valuation of property) Rules
1997- Sale deed executed on 16.02.1993rule came into force on 15.07.1997-having
no applicability with retrospective effectwhen
land
purchased-agricultural
landwithout declaration under Section 143 of
U.P.Z.A.L.R Act-can not be treated as
Commercial
or
residential
plot-future
potentiality can not be taken into considered
for stamp duty purpose.

Held:Para-9
2 All] Smt. Rekha Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Anr.
727
The question of future potential cannot be a
factor for determining the market value of
such land for the purpose of stamp duty
payable under the stamp act. The vendee
pays the price of the land that satisfies the
venders according to the utility of the land
as on the date of transfer by the vendor. If
the land was an agricultural land, it has to
be treated as such and the valuation has to
be done accordingly. The future potential
cannot be a factor for determing market
value for payment of stamp duty under the
stamp act. In future if purchaser changes
the
utility
and
character
of
land
is
immaterial for the purpose of determining
of stamp duty.

Case Law discussed:
2011 (3) awc 3093; 2000(3) (AWC) 2587;
2012(2) AWC 1836 (SC); 2005 (98) RD 511:
2005(2) AWC 1087

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Tripathi, J.)

1. Mr. R. K.Porwal, Advocate,
appeared for the petitioner and learned
Standing
Counsel
on
behalf
of
respondent.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. Judgement
was reserved on 8.3.2013.

3. The present writ petition has been
filed with the prayer to issue writ of
certiorari quashing the impugned order
dated 21.3.1998 and 14.2.2000 passed by
respondent no.2 and 1 respectively
(annexure nos.1 and 2 respectively to this
petition).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the land in question was
jointly purchased by the petitioners, who
are real sisters, measuring 22 decimal, out
of plot no.201 (A) having total area of
3.66 decimal from one Attar Singh for a
sum of Rs.42,000/-. The land was an
agricultural land and according to circle
rate, of the land, stamp duty was paid.
There was no deficiency of stamp duty.
The sale deed was executed and registered
on 16.2.1993. Subsequently on the ground
that there was deficiency the sale deed
was impounded and notice was issued.
The application was moved on behalf of
petitioner seeking time to file written
objection with regard to the queries
mentioned in the notice. However,
without giving any opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners and without allowing
time to file objection order was passed by
the Additional District Collector (Stamp),
Etawah on 21.3.1998 declaring that there
was deficiency for a sum of Rs.38, 164/-
and equal to the deficiency amount
penalty was imposed and as such the
petitioner was asked to deposit total a sum
of Rs.76,328/-. Against that revision was
preferred by the petitioners, which was
partly allowed by the respondent no.1,
Chief Controller, Revenue Authority,
U.P./Board of Revenue, Allahabad and
penalty was set aside. However, order
regarding
deficiency
of
stamp
was
affirmed on the ground that since only 20
decimal land was purchased by two
different persons (petitioners) hence in the
share of each of the petitioner there was
ten decimal land. According to valuation
list of the area on 1.1.1992 the plot upto
the area of 10 decimal would be
considered as a residential plot and further
there was no evidence of cultivation and
farming over the land in question. He
further submitted that both the authorities
failed to consider that the land was
purchased jointly by two real sisters and
the circle rate, which was issued by the
District Magistrate, Etawa was with
regard to the plot, which were only ten
decimal hence it was deemed to be not for
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
the agricultural purposes. The receipt
regarding the irrigation was also produced
before the authorities. When the land was
purchased it was agricultural land and
merely on the presumption that in future it
might be converted into residential, the
valuation cannot be determined because
the valuation has to be determined on the
basis of the nature and valuation of the
land on the date of execution of the deed.
There was no material and merely on the
basis of presumption it was observed that
after the plot was divided by the
petitioners, area of each plot would be ten
decimal, though in fact there was no
partition over the land in question, which
was jointly purchased by real sisters.
Hence the observation was hypothetical
and based on presumption. He also
submitted that there was no declaration
and order under section 143 of the U.P.
Z.A. & L. R. Act for change of user and
nature of the land into Abadi or
residential from the agricultural land.
Hence the order passed by both the
authorities are illegal, arbitrarily, without
jurisdiction and against the principle of
natural justice and as such the same are
liable to be set aside. He also relied the
judgment of this Court reported in 2011
(3) AWC 3093 Sunti Bunti Automobiles
(P.) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others in
which it was held that the circle rate for
the residential cannot be applied for
determining the market value of the
agricultural
land, if
there
was
no
declaration under section 143 of U.P.Z.A
& L.R. Act relying the earlier judgment of
this Court in 2000 (3) (AWC) 2587
Aniruddha
Kumar
and
Ashwini
Kumar V. Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority,
U.P.,
Allahabad
and
another. He also relied other judgements
of
this
Court
in
which
aforesaid
judgments were followed. He further cited
the judgment of the Apex Court 2012(2)
AWC 1836 (SC) State of U.P. and
others
Vs.
Ambrish
Tandon
and
another. Hence in view of the law and
aforesaid judgments he submitted that
both the orders are liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Standing Counsel
vehemently opposed aforesaid prayer and
submitted that earlier the plots might have
been agricultural plot but the village
Jugramau is adjacent to Kasba/city
Etawah, which is a developed place and
according to valuation list dated 1.1.1992
issued by the District Collector if any plot
was purchased upto 10 decimal that
would be treated as residential plot and in
the present case admittedly 20 decimal
land was purchased by two petitioners
though by a joint sale deed just for
evasion of the stamp duty to show that the
area of the plot was 20 decimal, which
was double to the maximum area
provided in the valuation list. There was
no evidence to show that it was purchased
for agricultural purposes and farming was
being done there. He also contended that
the lower revisional court, respondent
no.1, has already taken lenient view and
the penalty imposed by the Additional
Collector was set aside, however, the
order regarding deficiency of stamp duty
was affirmed and as such no interference
is required.

6. Considered the submission of
learned counsel for the parties. There is
no dispute that the land, which was
purchased from one Attar Singh was part
of the plot no.201 (A) having area of 3.66
decimal out of that 20 decimal land was
purchased by the petitioners, who were
claiming to be real sisters. As far as the
determination of the market value of the
land regarding which the sale deed was
2 All] Smt. Rekha Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Anr.
729
executed is concerned, the valuation of
the land on the date of registration of the
deed is relevant and not the future
potentiality and change of user of the
land. Admittedly there is no declaration
under section 143 U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act
regarding change of the user and nature of
land, which was recorded as agricultural
land when the sale deed was executed and
there is also no dispute or any evidence
that when Attar Singh transferred the land
by executing registered sale deed he was
not cultivating for sowing crops rather
receipt regarding irrigation was produced
on behalf of the petitioners with regard to
the land in question. In the present case,
the sale deed was executed on 16.2.1993
and the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 was published in
the U.P. gazette dated 15.7.1997. Before
that the rule was not in existence and after
that rule the valuation has to be
considered under rule 4, 5, 6 and 7. The
various factors are necessary to be
considered for determining the market
value of the property on the date of sale
and execution of the deed. The circle rate,
potentiality and utility of the land on the
date of transfer of the land and
surrounding lands and exemplar are the
factors which ought to be considered for
determining the market value for the
purpose of stamp duty payable under the
stamp act. As far as exemplar of any deed
is concerned, adjacent or near the plot in
question
is
important
factor
for
determining the market value. On the
basis of future potentiality and utility of
the land, the market value cannot be
determined for payment of stamp duty
because the vendee is required to pay
stamp duty for purchase of the property in
question on the basis of its value on the
date of purchase and execution of the
deed. However, in the present case, there
was grievance of the petitioner that no
opportunity was given to file the reply
with regard to the queries made in the
show cause notice. Even there was no
information
and
notice
for
spot
inspection. Even any building was not
found adjacent or near the plot in
question. Merely on the ground that
village Jugramau, where the land in
question is situated was adjacent to
kasba/city Etawa, the valuation was
determined.
While
determing
the
valuation of the property in question for
payment of stamp duty it is the
potentiality and utility of the land on the
date when the same was purchased and
sale deed was got registered, is a relevant
factors. In the present case neither any
part of the area of particular village,
which is adjacent to the kasba nor any
exemplar
has
been
considered
and
examined
to
show
that
even
an
agricultural plot was transferred and
purchased as a residential plot or any
residential or commercial plot was
situated adjacent or near the plot. In case
of Sunti Bunti Automobiles (P.) Ltd.
(supra) the land was initially recorded as
an agricultural land and there was no
declaration under section 143 of U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act though an application was
moved but that remain pending so there
was no declaration. It was held that in
absence of exemplar sale deed or any
other positive evidence to establish higher
market value of the land in dispute than
disclosed in the instrument, the impugned
orders cannot be sustained under law.

7. In case of Ram Khelawan V.
State of U.P. and another, 2005 (98) RD
511 : 2005(2) AWC 1087 it was held that
" the circle rates notified under the Indian
Stamp Act are merely guidelines for
determining the market value that too till
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
the time of registration of the document
and the said rates would not be a
conclusive proof of the market value
which
on
registration
has
to
be
determined
by
applying
general
principles,
which
are
applicable
in
determining the compensation under the
Land Acquisition Act. It was also held
that the exemplar sale method is the best
method for determining the market
value."

8. In case of State of U.P. and others
Vs. Ambrish Tandon and another (supra)
it was held by the Apex Court that
"merely because the property is being
used for commercial purpose at the later
point of time may not be a relevant
criterion for assessing the value for
purpose of stamp duty. The nature of user
is relatable to the date of purchase and it
is relevant for the purpose of calculation
of stamp duty" and the judgement and
order of the High Court was upheld by the
Apex Court.

9. In case of Aniruddha Kumar and
Ashwini Kumar (supra) the argument that
for
purpose
of
determination
of
compensation under the Land Acquisition
Act future potential of the land is also to
be taken into account but the same
principle cannot be a consideration for
determination of market value of stamp
duty under the Stamp Act. It was held by
the Court that the submission appeared to
be a sound proposition of law. In that case
also the land was agricultural land and
there was no declaration under section
143 U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act and it was held
that the market value has to be determined
on the basis of value that would satisfy
the vendor. The question of future
potential
cannot
be
a
factor
for
determining the market value of such land
for the purpose of stamp duty payable
under the stamp act. The vendee pays the
price of the land that satisfies the venders
according to the utility of the land as on
the date of transfer by the vendor. If the
land was an agricultural land, it has to be
treated as such and the valuation has to be
done accordingly. The future potential
cannot be a factor for determing market
value for payment of stamp duty under
the stamp act. In future if purchaser
changes the utility and character of land is
immaterial for the purpose of determining
of stamp duty.

10. In view of the aforesaid
discussion,
the
order
declaring
the
deficiency of stamp duty is illegal and
without
jurisdiction.
As
such
the
impugned orders cannot sustain hence the
impugned orders dated 21.3.1998 and
14.2.2000 passed by respondent no.2 and
1 respectively are hereby quashed.

11. Accordingly, present writ
petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
The amount if any deposited towards
deficiency of stamp duty in pursuance of
the interim order dated 2.8.2000 shall be
refunded
to
the
petitioner
within
reasonable period, preferably, within six
weeks after furnishing certified copy of
this order.
---------