Court challenges validity of Stamp Rules & Circle Rates, directs authorities to provide material.

The Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments challenging the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp Rules and the arbitrary fixation of Circle Rates by the Collector. Notices were issued to the Advocate General, U.P., and directions were given for filing counter affidavits. The Collector and A.D.M. Nazul, Allahabad, were directed to provide relevant material for determining Circle Rates. The case was scheduled for further hearing on 16.07.2010, with specific instructions for communication and necessary actions to be taken by relevant authorities.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997.
2. Arbitrary fixation of Circle Rates by the Collector.
3. Impact of government policy on Nazul land conversion.
4. Allegations of fraud and extortion by State functionaries.

Summary:

1. Validity of Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997:
The petitioner, a practising advocate, challenged the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, particularly Rule 4(2), on the grounds that it grants the District Collector unbridled and unguided power to determine and revise Circle Rates for immovable property, thus suffering from the vice of excessive delegation. The petitioner argued that the Rules do not provide any guiding principles or material for the Authority to consider while determining/revising the minimum value (Circle Rate) of immovable property for Stamp Duty purposes. The petitioner contended that Rule 4(2) is unconstitutional and invalid as the rule-making authority cannot delegate such power to the District Collector.

2. Arbitrary Fixation of Circle Rates by the Collector:
The petitioner demonstrated that the Circle Rates revised by the Collector in the impugned notification were highly exorbitant and not reflective of the true minimum value of the land. The rates were allegedly enhanced 10 to 15 times without justifiable material or factors, such as sale exemplars, previous transactions, and location. The petitioner provided examples of arbitrary enhancements in Circle Rates through various notifications issued between 2006 and 2008, showing a 300% increase within two years and four months. The petitioner argued that these revisions were made arbitrarily and without genuine sale exemplars or justifiable materials, indicating a colorable and arbitrary exercise of power.

3. Impact of Government Policy on Nazul Land Conversion:
The petitioner highlighted that the government policy of converting Nazul land held by lease-holders into free-hold land has led to big colonizers and land-mafias becoming active. These entities, with the help of higher-ups in the local administration, have succeeded in getting disproportionate enhancements of Circle Rates in District Allahabad, particularly in City Allahabad. The petitioner argued that this policy has resulted in undue escalation of land prices, adversely affecting common and middle-class people while benefiting those with black money.

4. Allegations of Fraud and Extortion by State Functionaries:
The petitioner alleged that the arbitrary fixation of Circle Rates by the Collector was not merely an arbitrary exercise of power but amounted to fraud on power and extortion of money by State functionaries. The petitioner argued that this practice diverted immovable property into the hands of land-mafias and persons with huge black money, causing undue hardship to common people. The petitioner sought the Court's intervention to protect public interest and keep State machineries within the limits of their powers.

Court's Directions:
The Court found substance in the petitioner's submissions and deemed it necessary to hear the learned Advocate General, U.P. The Court issued notices to the learned Advocate General, U.P., and directed the learned standing counsel to file a counter affidavit within three weeks. The counter affidavit was to be sworn by an officer of the State Government with the status of Secretary to the Government of the concerned department. The Court also directed the Collector Allahabad to file a counter affidavit addressing the assertions made in the writ petition and supplementary affidavit, along with relevant notifications and material used for determining Circle Rates. The Collector and A.D.M. Nazul, Allahabad, were directed to remain present in Court on the next hearing date.

Next Hearing Date:
The case was listed for further hearing on 16.07.2010 as part heard before the Court. The Registrar General was directed to communicate the order to the Secretary Finance and Revenue, U.P. Government, Lucknow, and the District Magistrate, Allahabad, through fax forthwith. A copy of the order was also to be given to the Learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, for communication and necessary action free of costs.

---