Mustakeem and another vs State of Uttarakhand

Alok Singh, J.

Petitioners purchased a property bearing Khasra No. 268 situated in village Rampur Mustahkam, Paragana and Tehsil â€" Roorkee, District

Haridwar by a registered sale deed on 23.02.1999. Proceeding under Section 47 A/33, 40 (B) of the Stamp Act along with Rule 350 of the Stamp

Rules was initiated. Tehsildar Roorkee submitted a report to the effect that Khasra No.268 measuring 0.0445 hectare is near to abadi but land is not

being used for abadi purposes. Thereafter, Sub Divisional Magistrate submitted a spot inspection report stating therein that Khasra No.268 is not being

used for agricultural purposes and the same is near abadi and there is boundary wall on the spot. Petitioner filed their objection against the ex parte

spot inspection report disputing the boundary wall on the spot. Thereafter, Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the order dated 06.10.2004 directing the

petitioners to pay deficit stamp duty and imposed penalty. Petitioners filed revision, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 24.08.2007. Feeling

aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court.

Heard Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. V.D. Bisen, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and perused the material

available on record.

Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners, submits that nature and use of the property, on the date of purchase of the property, has to be seen

for the purpose of assessing market value. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Graphic Era

Educational Society Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2015 (2)UD 588.

Mr. V.D. Bisen, Brief Holder for the State / respondent submits that land, in question, was abadi land. In support of his contention he has placed

reliance on chart of consolidation (Annexure CA2 to the counter affidavit).

Date of issuance of Annexure CA 2 is not known and in the rejoinder affidavit, it is submitted by the petitioners that it was issued subsequent to

sale deed.

From perusal of the record, it transpires that at the relevant time, land, in question, was an agricultural land and was not converted into abadi land.

Merely issuance of report by Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate that abadi is near the land, in question, would not suffice the contention of

respondent. It is a settled position of law that nature and use of the property, on the date of purchase of the property, has to be seen for the purpose of

assessing stamp duty and future use shall not be taken into consideration while assessing the stamp duty. In view of the above, impugned orders are

liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 06.10.2004 and 24.08.2007 are hereby quashed. Rs. 20,000/-along with interest, if any,

deposited by the petitioners in compliance of order dated 11.09.2007 shall be refunded to the petitioners within three weeks from the date of moving of

application for refund. No order as to costs.