1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3743 OF 2010 (Bajrangilal Bchairam Gupta vs. Shri M.T. Kedar & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 20, 2010. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff, Mrs. Deshpande, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Dangre, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6. The question is of calculation of stamp duty payable on a document which was directed to be impounded. The appeal preferred against the order of Collector of Stamps was earlier disposed of and that order was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4191 of 2007. This Court then noted the readiness and willingness of the petitioner to deposit stamp duty of Rs. Eight lacs to show his bonafide and later on remanded the matter for fresh determination. The appellate authority viz., Respondent No.1 has thereafter passed impugned orders on 29.06.2010. The document dated 29.05.2003 has been assessed to stamp duty of Rs.11,93,575/- and penalty of Rs.17,66,500/-. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel has contended that the land of the vendor of the petitioner 2 has been acquired by A.P.M.C. by paying compensation of Rs.5 lacs per acre only. He has further urged that from vendor of the petitioner, Respondents No. 3 to 6 have also purchased the property at very less rate. According to him, the computation undertaken by deeming a lay out on said land is arbitrary and unwarranted. The land is still undeveloped and has not been converted to any non agricultural purpose. In this situation, according to him, valuation has to be only as agricultural land and after comparing with relevant sale/ purchase transactions in the vicinity then. Mrs. Deshpande, learned AGP as also Shri Dangre, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order. They point out that impounding of document is not in question. The rate of Rs.3,000/- per square meter as per ready reckoner has been applied after making allowances for compulsory reservations because of development and waiting period. According to them, there is nothing wrong with the order impugned and this Court should not interfere in this matter. With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the impugned orders. The impugned orders are based upon valuation report submitted by Town Planning department. The Town Planning has applied rate of Rs.3,000/- per square meter as per 2003 ready reckoner. 60% of the total area has been taken into account for applying said rate. 5% has been 3 deducted on account of administrative expenditure, 10% has been deducted on account of lay out development charges and margin of 15% has been left as profit of developer. Thus, after making allowance for 30%, the value has been worked out at Rs.2,34,55,000/-. Accordingly, then provisions of the Bombay Stamps Duty Act, 1958, are applied and single stamp duty as also penalty has been worked out. The perusal of order of the Collector of Stamps dated 05.08.2009 reveals that the Collector of Stamps had before it two valuations. In first valuation report submitted by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, the waiting period for sale of plots in proposed lay out was considered to be two years and hence by deducting interest at 9% per annum, value of one rupee was reduced to 0.842 paise. By applying said valuation and by making similar allowances, the total valuation then worked out was Rs.2,15,50,000/- (Rs. Two crore fifteen lac and fifty thousand only). In second valuation which is as per report dated 03.08.2009, waiting period for sale of plots in lay out is presumed to be one year and hence value of one rupee is scaled down to 0.917 paise. After making similar deductions, market value is worked at Rs.2,34,55,000/- (Rs. Two crore thirty four lac and fifty five thousand only). Thus, the Collector as also the appellate authority had before them two valuation reports submitted by the experts. The first report is dated 29.07.2009 and second report is dated 4 03.08.2009. Both orders do not show any reason for accepting one report and discarding the other. In this situation, I find that the report more beneficial to the petitioner ought to have been accepted. The said report dated 29.07.2009 shows the market value on 29.05.2003 to be Rs.2,15,50,000/-. The single stamp duty as also penalty under Section 39 of the Bombay Stamp Duty Act needs to be worked out on this value. Hence, only for said purpose, the appellate order dated 29.06.2010 is set aside. Respondent No. 2 – Collector of Stamps, Nagpur, shall work out the single Stamp duty as also penalty on the amount of Rs.2,15,50,000/- as mentioned above and proceed further in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order to it. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.