Stamp Act.
State to prove by evidence that property has been undervalued for the purpose of payment of stamp duty.
Mere initial report of Teahsildar on the basis of which notice has been issued can not be considered to fix market value of the property.
A report on the basis of which proceedings was initiated against the provisions of the Act 1899 may be relevant for initiation of proceedings but it cannot be relied upon to pass an order under the said Section in as much as the said report cannot itself form basis of the order passed under Section 47A of the Act.
In the case of Surendra Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and others reported in MANU/UP/0086/2009 : 2009 (27) LCD 442 has held that a report on the basis of which proceedings was initiated against the provisions of the Act 1899 may be relevant for initiation of proceedings but it cannot be relied upon to pass an order under the said Section in as much as the said report cannot itself form basis of the order passed under
Section 47A of the Act.
The report of the Tehsildar may be a relevant factor for initiation of the proceedings under Section 47A of the Act, but it cannot be relied upon to pass an order under the aforesaid section.
Under Section 47A(3) of the Act, the burden lay upon the Collector to prove that the market value is more than minimum as prescribed by the Collector under the Rules.
Badri Vishal Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (10.11.2022 – ALLHC) : MANU/UP/4422/2022