2016 (11) TMI 1186 - HC - Indian Laws

Treatment to plot of land as commercial - payment of stamp duty - Held that - Indisputably there cannot be any access to Plot-A & it is only possible through Plot-B and if Plot-A is treated as commercial we find no reason to still treat Plot-B from where there is an access alone to Plot-A where the petrol pump has been installed and operational not to be considered as commercial and that was a reason which initially prevailed upon the Collector (Stamps) and to the Rajasthan Tax Board and so also before the ld.Single Judge of this Court and merely because there was a separate description in the conveyance deed submitted before the Sub-Registrar (Stamps) no inference can be drawn in treating Plot-B in dispute as agricultural land for all practical purposes and taking into consideration the finding of fact which has come on record and more particularly when no documentary evidence has been placed by the appellant on record in rebuttal the finding of fact remains uncontroverted that Plot-B is abutting to the State Highway No.30 and Plot-A on which actually a petrol pump is installed cannot be put to use and access only from Plot-B that is abutting to the State Highway No.30 and once this finding has been confirmed with supportive evidence on record in our considered view no error has been committed by the competent authority and confirmed by the Rajasthan Tax Board and so also by the ld.Single Judge of this court which needs any further interference in the intra-court appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of writ petition without calling upon the respondents.
2. Dispute regarding the classification of Plot-B as commercial or agricultural land.
3. Impounding of sale deed by Sub-Registrar for deficient stamping.
4. Collector's valuation of the sale deed and demand for stamp duty.
5. Challenge of the Collector's decision before the Rajasthan Tax Board.
6. Appellant's argument regarding the commercial nature of Plot-B.
7. Justification for treating Plot-B as agricultural land.
8. Lack of documentary evidence provided by the appellant.
9. Applicability of cited judgments to the current case.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the dismissal of a writ petition without allowing the respondents to present their case, confirming the orders of the Collector (Stamps) and the Rajasthan Tax Board. The appellant had purchased two plots, Plot-A and Plot-B, with Plot-A converted for commercial use and a petrol pump installed. Plot-B was claimed to be unconverted agricultural land, leading to a dispute over its classification.

2. The main contention was the treatment of Plot-B as commercial land by the Collector (Stamps), resulting in a demand for stamp duty, registration charges, and penalty. The appellant argued that Plot-B remained agricultural, emphasizing the separate descriptions of Plot-A and Plot-B in the sale deed. The Collector's decision was upheld by the Rajasthan Tax Board, prompting the writ petition.

3. The appellant's counsel highlighted the condition of the Indian Road Congress, requiring land near highways to remain open for potential widening, suggesting that Plot-B's proximity to the highway prevented its conversion to commercial use. Despite the separate descriptions in the sale deed, the authorities maintained that Plot-B's connection to Plot-A, where the petrol pump was operational, indicated a commercial nature.

4. The court noted the lack of documentary evidence from the appellant to refute the findings that Plot-B abutted the State Highway No.30 and provided the only access to Plot-A. The judgments cited by the appellant were deemed irrelevant to the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for lack of merit.

5. In conclusion, the court found no error in the decision of the Single Judge, upholding the Collector's classification of Plot-B as commercial land and the associated stamp duty demand. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit, affirming the lower court's judgment.