Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Shivhare vs Collector Of Stamp And District ... on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 1111 of 2015
ANAND SHIVHARE AND ANOTHER
Versus
COLLECTOR OF STAMP AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI AND OTHERS
&
WRIT PETITION No. 1116 of 2015
ANAND SHIVHARE AND ANOTHER
Versus
COLLECTOR OF STAMP AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR DISTRICT
SHIVPURI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sijoria and Shri Madhur Bhargava - Advocates for
petitioners in Writ Petition No.1111/2015.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2
and 5/State.
None for respondents No.3 and 4 though served.
Appearance:
Shri Shri Siddharth Sijoria and Shri Madhur Bhargava - Advocates for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
2
petitioners in Writ Petition No.1116/2015.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2
and 5/State.
None for respondents No.3 and 4 though served.
____________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 15.09.2025
Pronounced on : 07.10.2025
__________________________________________________________
ORDER
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.
2. The instant writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by the petitioners claiming following reliefs: in
"1. That, it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that
the petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be
allowed and order passed by Board of Revenue on
21.04.2014 may kindly be quashed and the order
dated 28.12.2011 passed by Additional
Commissioner Gwalior and also orders dated
31.08.2009 & 27.10.2008 passed by respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
No.1 & 2 may kindly be quashed. Any other relief,
which this Hon'ble court may kindly, deems fit and
considers necessary in the facts and circumstances
of the case may kindly also be granted."
and in W.P.No.1116/2015:-
"1. That, it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that
the petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be
allowed and order passed by Board of Revenue on
21.04.2014 may kindly be quashed and the order
dated 28.12.2011 passed by Additional
Commissioner Gwalior and also orders dated
31.08.2009 & 27.10.2008 passed by respondent
No.1 & 2 may kindly be quashed. Any other relief,
which this Hon'ble court may kindly, deems fit and
considers necessary in the facts and circumstances
of the case may kindly also be granted."
3. Since the common orders are under challenge in both the writ
petitions and common arguments have been advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, both writ petitions are being disposed of by this
common order.
Facts of Writ Petition No.1111/2015:-
4. The petitioners purchased lands from respondents No.3 and 4,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
bearing Khasra No.1112 Min 01, admeasuring 1.045 hectares, situated at
Village Chhawani, Patwari Halka No.30, Pargana Shivpuri, Ward No.10,
HaathiKhana, Pohari Road, Shivpuri, District Shivpuri, through a sale
deed dated 27.10.2008, for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,28,170/-.
The sale deed mentions the lands as agricultural lands.
Facts of Writ Petition No.1116/2015:-
5. The petitioners purchased lands from the respondents No.3 and 4,
bearing Khasra No.1120 Min 27, admeasuring 0.418 hectares, situated at
Village Chhawani, Patwari Halka No.30, Pargana Shivpuri, Ward No.10,
HaathiKhana, Pohari Road, Shivpuri, District Shivpuri, through a sale
deed dated 27.10.2008, for a total sale consideration of Rs.04,48,000/-.
The sale deed mentions the lands as agricultural lands.
6. Finding undervaluation of the market value of the lands purchased
by the petitioners in the above referred sale deeds, respondent No.2, vide
order dated 27.10.2008, under Rule 4 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments Rules, 1975 (herein-above
referred to as "the Rules of 1975), referred the matter to respondent
No.1/Collector, Stamps, stating that in the sale deeds in question, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
lands have been shown to be agricultural lands, whereas, as per the
prevalent guidelines for the year 2008-2009, the market value of the
lands in question was Rs.5,000/- per square meter in respect of Khasra
No.1112, whereas it was Rs.2000/- per square meter in respect of Khasra
No.1120. Thus, there has been undervaluation of lands and evasion of
stamp duty on the part of the petitioners by stating the land to be
agricultural lands in the sale deeds in question. Accordingly, respondent
No.1 was requested to take actions in terms of Section 47-A of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
7. On the receipt of reference from respondent No.2, the Collector,
Stamps-respondent No.1 issued notices to the petitioners, held an
inquiry in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1975 and called for a report
which revealed that the lands in question are situated within the
boundary wall wherein, the residence of Superintendent of Police,
Shivpuri and other residential accommodations of Police Officer
situated. The lands in question cannot be stated to be agricultural lands.
Accordingly, the market value of the portions of the lands abutting the
road was assessed as commercial land, whereas the market value of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
lands situated at the backside was assessed as residential land.
Consequently, the market value of the land in question in W.P.No.
1111/2015 was determined to be Rs.2, 18,00,000/-, thereby ascertaining
a deficit stamp duty of Rs.19,52,350/- against the petitioners. In respect
of the land forming the subject matter of W.P.No.1116/2015, the market
value was assessed at Rs.67,11,000/-, and the deficit stamp duty was
ascertained at Rs.6,18,311/-.
8. Against the common order dated 31.08.2009, the first appeal
preferred by the petitioners was rejected by the Additional
Commissioner, Gwalior vide order dated 28.12.2011. Subsequently, the
second appeal preferred by the petitioners against these orders was also
rejected by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior vide order dated 21.04.2014.
It is these orders which are under challenge in these writ petitions.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the
conveyance documents itself recorded the lands to be agricultural lands,
then, the Collector ought not to have ascertained the market value of the
lands in question by considering them to have the potential for
commercial or residential use. He further submits that the actual use of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
the lands on the date of execution of the documents must form the basis
for the ascertainment of the market value of the lands. On the date of
execution of the sale deed, the lands were undiverted and were being
used for the agricultural purposes. Just because in future, the lands were
having the potential of being used for commercial or residential
purposes, the same could not form the basis for ascertaining the market
value of the lands.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the procedure as
contemplated under Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules of 1975, for the purpose
of ascertaining the market value of the lands in question has not been
followed by the respondents No.2 and 1. The legal ground raised by the
petitioners have not been considered either by the respondent No.1 in
passing the order dated 31.08.2009 or by the first and second appellate
authorities while rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioners. Apart
from the oral arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has also
filed their written submissions wherein; while reiterating their oral
arguments, they have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of State of U.P. Vs. Ambrish Tandon, reported in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
2012 (5) SCC 506 and Institute of the Franciscan Clarist Sisters Vs.
State of U.P., reported in 2020 SCC Online All 1928 ( Allahabad High
Court) and in the case of Kashi Nath Upadhyay Vs. Commissioner,
reported in 2015 SCC Online 5675, to contend that the ascertainment of
market value for the purposes of levy of stamp duty has to be made on
the basis of actual use of lands on the date of execution of the docu-
ments and not on the basis of its potential use in future. Thus, prayer for
quashment of orders impugned is made.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the writ
petitions and submits that in the fact-finding inquiry, it has come on
record that the lands in question which have been sold through the sale
deeds in question to the petitioners are situated within the boundary
walls wherein, the residence of the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri
already exists, on the spot, there does not exist any agricultural land. On
the adjoining land, there is residential house of Journalist Shri Chauhan,
on the other side, residential house of the Station House Officer and
Hathikhana Road and other houses are constructed. The adjoining lands
have facilities of light and piped water supply/tap. The Office of Tehsil
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
is situated at about 4 furlongs away. The spot inspection conducted by
the Collector, in the presence of the petitioners and petitioners' counsel,
revealed the said facts. Those findings of fact are not open for
re-appreciate in the instant writ proceedings. The Collector has
adequately ascertained the market value of the land in question which is
in terms of the Principles For Determinations of the market value of the
land as provided under the Rules of 1975. The scope of interference in
writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
extremely limited. Nothing on record has been placed by the petitioners
to show that the land was being used for the agricultural purpose or any
crops were standing on the land in question on the date of execution of
sale deeds.
12. Learned counsel for the State, by referring the original records of
the proceedings conducted by the Collector, Stamps, produced during
the course of hearing of the matter, referred photographs placed therein
to buttress his submission that the lands in question cannot, by any
stretch of imagination, be held to be agricultural lands. He submits that
there was a clear case of undervaluation of the property and thereby
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
evasion of the stamp duty on the part of the petitioners. By referring to
the original records, he submits that since the year 2003-2004, the other
persons have also purchased the portions of the lands from the Survey
No.1120 and Survey No.1112 and all such portions have been purchased
in the form of plots and their valuation have been done on per square
metre rate. The transactions of the petitioners is much thereafter i.e., in
the year 2008 and therefore, just by mentioning the lands to be
agricultural lands in the conveyance documents, the nature/use of land
does not become agricultural.
13. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the
ascertainment of market value by the Collector, Stamps in the impugned
order in the instant writ petition is on the basis of actual use of the land
on the date of execution of the documents and not on the basis of its
potential use. The case laws relied upon by the petitioners may not be
applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly,
he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
14. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the
parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
written submissions submitted on behalf of the petitioners.
16. The record indicates that the petitioners in both the sale deeds
have purchased the lands in question stating it to be agricultural lands
and accordingly, the market value of the lands were ascertained and the
stamp duty was paid.
17. Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 provides that the
Registering Officer while registering any instrument finds that the
market value of the property which is the subject matter of such
instrument have been set forth less than the minimum value determined
in accordance with any rules under this Act, he shall before the
registering such instrument refer the same to the Collector for the
determination of market value of such property and the proper duty
payable therein. Sub-section (1) of 47-A of the Rules of 1975 further
provides that if the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the
market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he shall
register such instrument and thereafter refer the same to the Collector for
determination of market value of such property or proper duty payable
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
thereon.
18. In the instant case, the respondent No.2 had reason to believe that
the lands in question were undervalued and the market value thereon has
not been truly set forth in the sale deeds, therefore in exercise of powers
in terms of Rule 4 (1) of the Rules of 1975, vide order dated 27.10.2008
referred the matter to the Collector, Stamps (respondent No.1)
categorically recording the reasons that in terms of prevalent guidelines
for the year 2008-2009, the market value of the lands ought to have been
Rs.5,000/- per square metre but for 1.045 hectares land, the sale
consideration mentioned in the sale deed was Rs.20,28,170/- (in
W.P.No.1111/ 2015).
19. In W.P.No.1116/2015 the lands being situated at approximately
500 meter from Haathikhana, Pohari Road, in terms of prevalent
guidelines for the year 2008-2009, market value of land is Rs.2000 per
square meatre whereas, the land of area 0.418 hectare, the sale
consideration mentioned in the sale deed is of Rs.4,48,000/-.
Accordingly, the Collector, Stamps was requested to determine the
appropriate duty by determination of the market value of the properties
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
involved therein.
20. The Collector, Stamps on receipt of the reference, issued notices to
the petitioners herein and called upon to submit their stand. The
petitioners appeared before the Collector and submitted their replies,
wherein they stated that the lands in question are agricultural lands only.
There is neither any plotting on lands nor there is any commercial area
in the near vicinity of the lands. The land is meant for the use of
agricultural purpose only. The respondent No.2 had erred in treating the
lands otherwise. Khasra entries of the land filed by the petitioners
mentions that the lands in question contained fruits bearing trees.
21. The Collector called for a report from the Tehsildar to ascertain the
location of the lands forming the subject matter of the sale deeds, the
Tehsildar, Shivpuri has submitted his report dated 28.02.2009 which
revealed that the land in question is situated adjacent to the residence of
the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri and is in the premises surrounded
by the boundary wall. The respondent No.2 placed documents before the
Collector, Stamps, Shivpuri to demonstrate that the number of portions
of the lands forming part of same Khasra Nos. 1112 and 1120 have been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
sold as plots since the year 2003 and all the lands are situated on the
same place.
22. In order to ascertain facts, the Collector, Stamps, in the presence
of the petitioners and their counsels, with the assistance of Clerk from
the Office of Sub-Registrar and Patwari of Gram Chhawani conducted
spot inspection of lands bearing Khasra No.1112 and 1120 which
revealed that the land bearing Survey No.1120 is situated on the inner
side from Pohari Road to Haathikhana, adjoining land there exists the
residence of Journalist Shri Chauhan, T.I. Shikarwar and other houses
near the land, there exists the facilities of electricity and water
supply/tap. Office of Tehsil is situated at the distance of 4 furlongs.
Similarly, the land bearing Survey No.1112 it was found within the
premises wherein the residence of the Superintendent of Police,
Shivpuri, is located. Accordingly, the Collector, Stamps concluded the
market value of the land bearing Khasra No. 1112 is as under :-
^^गणन %& प०क० ३ ब &105 वर 08&09 उक पकरण म 10485
वगमटर ऐररय ह 1463 वगमटर X 5000 र ड पर = 7316000 रमल
हत ह" । 9021 वगमटर X 2000 अ%दर = 18042000 ज(सम 20
पजतशत छट द, न, पर 14434000 रपय, ब(र मल हत ह यजन क-ल
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
ब% ( र मल 21750000 र एव% व0क % क कमत आत 41000 र० इस
पकर क-ल ब(र मल 21791000 आत ह ज(स, पणक म 2-1800000
जनरररत करत ह% ।^^
and for land bearing Khasra No.1120 is as under:-
^^गणन %& प०क० 6 ब&105 वर 08&09 उप प%( यक दर उकभजम
( जक हथखन पहर नयलय jksM स, दर ¼500 QhV½ स=त ह" । तथ
इस क,त क गईड लईन वर 2008&09 क, अन-स र 2000@पजतवग मटर
ह" । दसव,( म जवकत रकव 0-418 ह० यन 4194 X 2000 ¾
8388000 र हत ह" । मल 8388000 म 20 पजतशत क कम करन
उजBत समझत ह% । उक भजम पण जवकजसत ह। तदन-स र ब(र मल
6710500 हत ह" ज(स, पणक म 6711000 जनरररत करत हD ।^^
and accordingly, determined the stamp duty as under:-
Sl.No. Case No. The value stated Value ascertained Deficit Stamp
and Year in the instrument by the Collector of Duty payable
by the party Stamps
1 03 B-105 2028170 2,18,00000 19,52,350=00
year 08-09
2 06 B-105 448000 67,11000 6,18,311=00
Year 08-09
23. The Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Under-Valuation
of Rules 1975 reads as under:-
"5. Principles for determination of market value.- The
Collector shall as far as possible have also regard to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
the following points in arriving at the market value.
(a) In the case of land -
(i) Classification of the land as dry, or wet and the
like; (ii) Classification under various categories in the
settlement register:
(iii) the rate of revenue assessment for each classifica-
tion:
(iv) other factors which influence the valuation of the
land in question;
(v) points, if any, mentioned by the parties to the instru-
ment or any other person which require special consid-
eration;
(vi) Value of adjacent land or lands in the vicinity:
(vii) average yield from the land nearness to road and
market, distance from village site, level of land, trans-
port facilities, facilities available for irrigation in any
form:
(viii) the nature of crops raised on the land."
24. The inquiry conducted by the Collector, Stamps, to ascertain the
marked value of the lands as discussed herein-above, when tested on the
principles for ascertainment of market value as laid down in Rule 5 of
the Rules of 1975 (supra) reveals that the valuation of the market value
of the lands in question has been done by the Collector, Stamps on the
basis of actual use of the lands on the date of execution of the
documents and not on the basis of its potential use in future as has been
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
conclusion of this Court finds force from the perusal of the original
records of the proceedings conducted by the respondent No.1 wherein
the chart in the form of Appendix - B has been placed on record to show
that number of sale transactions in respect of the land from the same
Khasra no.1112 and 1120 and adjoining Khasra were undertaken from
the year 2003 onwards wherein, the lands have been sold in the form of
plots by determining their market value on the basis of square meter and
not on the basis of hectares even the seller of those plots is respondent
No.3.
25. Moreover, there is no material on record to suggest that the lands
in question were, in fact, being used for agricultural purposes on the date
of execution of sale deeds, on the contrary, the photographs filed in the
original record do not reflect the land being used to grow crops/
agricultural use.
26. The case laws thus relied upon by the petitioners in the cases of
State of U.P. Vs. Ambrish Tandon (supra) and Kashi Nath Upadhyay
(supra) are not applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the
case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
27. This Court, in the case of Hajjin Salma Begum wd/o Shaukat
Hussain Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2006 (2) MPLJ 61,
has considered the scope of interference under writ jurisdiction in
matters pertaining to the ascertainment of market value of the property
by the Collector (Stamps) on the basis of spot inspection and fact find-
ing inquiry report. In paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof, it has been held as
under:-
"9. Now coming to the merit of the case on going
through the impugned order (Annex. P-22) it is re-
vealed that the Collector has considered each and ev-
ery minor detail of the property. It has been specifically
mentioned in the order that the sold property is situated
on the main road of Jaisingh Nagar and it is situated
on the Rewa-Shahdol Highway. The sold property is
surrounded by several houses. The Collector on para 4
of its order has mentioned that the sold property was
being used for commercial purpose and there is market
where the sold property is situated. Therefore, the au-
thority has assessed the market value of the land to be
Rs. 13/- per sq. ft. It has not been disputed that the sold
property is not situated on Rewa-Shahdol Highway.
The Collector has also taken into consideration that the
structure of the godown would fetch price of Rs. 2/- per
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-GWL:24619
WP.No.1111/2015 & WP.No.1116/2015
sq. ft. and therefore, assessed the value of the con-
structed area of the godown to be Rs. 15/- per sq. ft.
which includes cost of the land as well as constructed
area.
10. The findings arrived at by the Collector are pure
findings of fact and are not required to be interfered
with while exercising writ jurisdiction."
28. When the orders impugned in the instant writ petitions are tested
on the anvil of the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by this
Court, the order of the Collector being based upon findings of fact, no
illegality or perversity is found in the order dated 27.10.2008 passed by
the respondent No.2, the order dated 31.08.2009 passed by the Collector,
Stamps, the order 28.12.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Gwalior Division, Gwalior and the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the
Board of Revenue, Gwalior.
29. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed.
30. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
ANAND
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=30e7e141a48595a044fe14fab9779154e89774736
KUMAR
eaa1155f0b38df9b11ed48f, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=9881A3B8C48E345BD15ED92A4796A453BE
4A85F85058935FD9170CCD6BC41C1A, cn=ANAND KUMAR
Date: 2025.10.07 19:13:03 +05'30'
