Allahabad High Court
Khalid Bin Afzal vs Additional Commissioner And ... on 19 December, 2022
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1002202 of 2008
Petitioner :- Khalid Bin Afzal
Respondent :- Additional Commissioner And Other
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K.Jauhari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard.
The short point which arises in the present writ petition is that keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Surendra Singh and anr Vs. State of U.P and Ors reported in 2009 (27) LCD 442 whether the report on the basis of which proceedings under Section 47 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 have been initiated can be considered for passing of an order in the absence of any other material being there on record?
The case set forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that he had purchased land through registered sale deed dated 02.05.2005. A report was called for by the competent authority on which was submitted on 01.12.2005. Subsequent thereto, another report was called for which was submitted on 20.01.2006 by the Assistant Inspector General (Registration), Balrampur, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition. On the basis of the said report, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, 1899. The petitioner was required to submit his objections which in fact were submitted but the authority concerned, after only considering the reports dated 01.12.2005 and 20.01.2006, which had been called for prior to initiation of the proceedings under the Act, 1899 and were in fact the basis of initiation of proceedings under the Act, 1899 has passed the order impugned dated 22.12.2006 requiring the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty along with registration charges and penalty. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the petitioner which has also been dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2008, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition. Still being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed.
The question which arises in the instant petition has already been set forth above.
The aforesaid question has been answered by this Court in the case of Surendera Singh (supra) wherein it has been held as under:-
"13. None of the authorities below besides the report of the Sub-Registrar has referred any other material in support of their orders. In Ram Khelawan @ Bachha v. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpur and another, 2005 (98) RD 511, it has been held that 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. In other words, the said report cannot form itself basis of the order passed under Section 47A of the Act. In the case of Vijai Kumar v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, 2008 (7) ADJ 293 (para 17), the ambit and scope of Section 47A of the Act has been considered with some depth. Taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kaka Singh v. Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), 1986 ALJ 49; Kishore Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (104) RD 253 and various other cases it has been held that 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. The report of the Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar itself is not sufficient to discharge that burden."
(emphasis by this Court)
Perusal of the order impugned dated 22.12.2006 would indicate that apart from the two reports dated 01.12.2005 and 20.01.2006 which were called for by the competent authority prior to initiation of the proceedings under Section 47 (A) of the Act, 1899, no other material has been considered.
The law is well settled, as already indicated above that the report on the basis of which proceedings under the Act, 1899 are initiated, cannot be used as a sole basis for passing of an order. As already indicated above, no other material has been considered by the competent authority while passing the order impugned dated 22.12.2006. This aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 12.03.2008.
Accordingly, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Singh (supra) and the fact that there is no other material on record except the two reports dated 01.12.2005 & 20.01.2006 on the basis of which proceedings were initiated against the Act, 1899 and which fact has also not been considered by the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 22.12.2006, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The orders impugned dated 12.03.2008 and 22.12.2006, copies of which are annexures 1 & 2 respectively to the writ petition are set aside. The matter is remitted to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Consequences to follow.
Order Date :- 19.12.2022
Pachhere/-
