COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 1348/2007 (Old No. 28276/1998) State of U.P. through Collector, Nainital …….Petitioner Versus M/s Meenakshi Steel Industries Limited And Other. …….Respondents Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri J.S. Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sharad Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1. 23rd July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.7.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue/respondent no. 2, which is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 2. Facts, in brief, are that one Sri Shankar Dutt Dalakoti R/o Forest Lodge, Tallital, Nainital executed the registered sale deeds in respect of 202 Nali and 10 Mutthi land out of plot no. 27 and 23 Nali and 1 Mutthi situated in village Satvanga, Tehsil and District Nainital in favour of respondent no. 1 M/s Meenakshi Steel Industry Ltd., Bombay for consideration of Rs. 16,21,000/- paying a stamp duty of Rs. 2,35,100/- and Rs. 1,84,500/- paying a stamp duty of Rs. 26,900/-. Sub-Registrar, Nainital submitted his report to Collector, Nainital on 4.12.1992 along with the documents under Section 47-A(2) of Stamp Act for determination of the Market value of the 2 property in question stating therein that the documents indicated that the land will be used for agricultural or other use as permitted under law. He further said that since the purchaser is an industrial company, it may use the land in question for industrial purposes in future and as such a different stamp duty rate would be applicable in such circumstances. Stamp cases were registered and notices were issued to the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 filed objections stating that he has purchased the land in question in village Satvunga which is unirrigated and uneven land for agricultural purposes and not for industrial purposes because there is no water, electricity, road, transport facility, raw material, market facility and labour facility which are necessary for setting up an industry. He also said that the stamp duty paid on the documents is sufficient and proper and there is no question of evading stamp duty and an affidavit to this effect had already been submitted before the Sub- Registrar and in the end, it was requested that the notices be withdrawn. 3. The Additional Collector obtained a spot inspection report made by Tehsildar, Nainital who submitted in his report that the land in question is unirrigated land and is being used for agricultural purposes, the land has fruit trees standing over it and there is no building given on rent in the said land. He also reported that according to circle rate determined by the Collector for grove lands the value per nali is Rs. 5000 to Rs. 7000 and the value of the entire property comes to the value shown in documents and the stamp duty already paid was sufficient and proper. The Additional Collector after considering the materials available on record came to the 3 conclusion that the land in question which has been purchased by an industrial company could be used for industrial purpose in future and the value of the property should be assessed at the rate of the land determined for industrial use. Consequently, he assessed the entire property to be of Rs. 70,87,500/- and deducting Rs. 16,21,500/- the difference of value of the land comes to Rs. 54,66,500/-, for which a stamp duty of Rs. 7,92,642.50 was chargeable on the document. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed on the respondent no. 1. He also imposed stamp duty of Rs. 92,292.50 and penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the other document. 4. Aggrieved with this, the respondent no. 1 preferred revision before the Chief Controller of Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad. The appellate authority, after taking into consideration the entire material on record, has held that the Additional Collector acted on surmises and speculations in reaching to the conclusion that in future some industry could be set up and on that basis assessed the value of the land in question as the land in question is still agricultural and not industrial and that the documents in question do no suffer from insufficiency of stamp duty and the value of the property in question as disclosed in the documents is proper and there is no evasion of stamp duty of any kind. Accordingly, vide the impugned order dated 31.7.1997, the revision was allowed and the documents in question were declared to be property stamped. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the respective parties and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above and in the light of the materials 4 available on record, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The Additional Collector wrongly applied the rate contrary to the rules having the statutory force of law as well as enhanced the stamp duty on the basis of the nature of expected/possible future use of the property. As such, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly without any order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 23.7.2008 Prabodh