Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7933 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1044 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Kailasha Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Pathak,Adarsh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Alok Srivastava, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed assailing order dated 21.06.2017 passed under section 47A-3 of Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1899) as well as revisional order dated 20.06.2024 passed under Section 56 of the Act of 1899. 3. By means of aforesaid impugned orders, the property in question has been adjudged to be deficient in stamp duty which was imposed along with penalty and interest. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the property in question has been incorrectly indicated as residential despite fact that agricultural activities are ongoing on the said property. It is further submitted that the said property has been adjudged to be residential in nature only on the basis of an exparte inspection report and has therefore placed reliance on provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997[hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997]. It is also submitted that petitioner in fact has made payment of stamp duty as per the circle rate imposed upon the property. 5. Learned State counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that deficiency in stamp duty has been indicated not only on basis of inspection report but also on basis of exemplar pertaining to adjoining Gata No.784. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record it is evident that the property in question situate in Gata no.784 of the Village in question was purchased by petitioner by means of sale deed dated 04.03.20214 to which deficiency in stamp duty has been indicated by means of impugned orders. 7. From a perusal of impugned orders, it is evident that although property in question has been held to be residential in nature on the basis of inspection report but neither of the authorities have considered the objections raised by petitioner pertaining to Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997. Nonetheless, it is also evident from a perusal of impugned orders that adjudication has been made also on the basis of an exemplar pertaining to sale deed no.523 of 2015 in the adjoining Gata no.782 in which also the property was considered to be non- agricultural. 8. A Full Bench of this Court in Pushpa Sareen v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2015(33) LCD 1575 has clearly enunciated the law that future potentiality of property can be taken into account as on the date of execution of sale deed primarily on the basis of exemplars. Relevant portions of the judgment are as follows:- "27. The true test for determination by the Collector is the market value of the property on the date of the instrument because, under the provisions of the Act, every instrument is required to be stamped before or at the time of execution. In making that determination, the Collector has to be mindful of the fact that the market value of the property may vary from location to location and is dependent upon a large number of circumstances having a bearing on the comparative advantages or disadvantages of the land as well as the use to which the land can be put on the date of the execution of the instrument." "28. Undoubtedly, the Collector is not permitted to launch upon a speculative inquiry about the prospective use to which a land may be put to use at an uncertain future date. The market value of the property has to be determined with reference to the use to which the land is capable reasonably of being put to immediately or in the proximate future. The possibility of the land becoming available in the immediate or near future for better use and enjoyment reflects upon the potentiality of the land. This potential has to be assessed with reference to the date of the execution of the instrument. In other words, the power of the Collector cannot be unduly circumscribed by ruling out the potential to which the land can be advantageously deployed at the time of the execution of the instrument or a period reasonably proximate thereto. Again the use to which land in the area had been put is a material consideration. If the land surrounding the property in question has been put to commercial use, it would be improper to hold that this is a circumstance which should not weigh with the Collector as a factor, which influences the market value of the land." 9. Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgments in present facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the property in question has been adjudged to be residential in nature not only on basis of inspection reports but also on basis of exemplars pertaining to adjoining property. 10. In view thereof, there does not appear to be any occasion to interfere in the orders being impugned. 11. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench