Rahees Ahmed vs State of Uttarakhand and four Others

Hon''ble B.S. Verma, J.

(Interim Relief Application No. 10289 of 2012)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 9-6-2009 passed u/s 47A of the Indian Stamps Act (for short the Act) by the Assistant Commissioner Stamps, Udham Singh Nagar (Annexure No. 7) in Stamp Case No. 30 of 2007-2008 and the order dated 22-5-2012 (Annexure No. 9 to the petition) passed by the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital, u/s 56 of the Act, in Revision No. 24 of 2008-2009/10 (2010-2011) Rahees Ahmad Vs. State of Uttarakhand.

According to the petitioner, the stamp duty on the document in question was paid as per market value and the circle rate fixed by the Collector.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Assistant Commissioner Stamps has wrongly calculated the stamp duty by presumption that in future the nearby land is being developed for industrial estate.

The learned Assistant Commissioner of Stamps obtained the report of Tehsildar, Kashipur. As per the report of the Tehsildar also, at the time of execution of the document/sale-deed, there was crop on the land in question. On the basis of future prospect of the land, prima facie the stamp duty cannot be levied and the stamp duty is payable on the basis of the market value of the land on the date of execution of the document.

Secondly, it is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that u/s 47 of the Stamps Act, the Sub Registrar after registering the document becomes functus officio. The Sub Registrar can only refer the original document either before registration or after the registration for adjudication to the Collector. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the Sub Registrar has returned the document to the petitioner after the same was registered by him. After the document is registered, only the Collector or the Assistant Commissioner of Stamps suo motu can take action on the copy of the document. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore contended that as per report of the Tehsildar, the land was agricultural on the spot at the time of execution of sale deed, therefore, the stamp duty thereon was payable on the basis of the market value of the land and that the stamp duty could not have been levied as chargeable for the industrial area.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, till the next date of listing, no recovery shall be made of the deficit stamp duty from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders. (Interim relief application is disposed of.)

The respondents may file their counter affidavit in 4 weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit in two weeks. List after the expiry of aforesaid period for admission.