Allahabad High Court
Paryul Singhal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 April, 2023
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22113 of 2021
Petitioner :- Paryul Singhal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Phool Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22268 of 2021
Petitioner :- Prakhar Singhai (Minor)
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Phool Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22266 of 2021
Petitioner :- Paryul Singhai
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Phool Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.v
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
By means of these petitions, the petitioners have assailed the orders dated 31.12.2020 & 12.8.2021 passed by respondents no.2 & 3.
As the issue involved in above mentioned three petitions are same, hence the same are being heard together and decided by this common judgment.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have purchased the land by sale-deed dated 9.10.2019 after paying the due stamp duty thereof, which was in accordance with law. He submits that one ex-parte inquiry was conducted behind his back on 5.12.2019 and on that basis, show cause notices were issued on 21.1.2020. The petitioners replied on the basis of show cause notices on 18.3.2020. When the order passed by the District Magistrate on 31.12.2020 holding that the plot in question is of a residential use and whereas the plottings are going on surroundings the area, therefore, the value of the plot have been under assessed and deficiency of stamp was confirmed.In brief, the appeals filed by the petitioners were rejected.
Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the notice was only issued on the basis of survey report dated 5.12.2019 and the copy of the same has never been served and the District Magistrate passed an order on the other ground that the plot in question is of residential use and plotting are going on, to which petitioners were not put to notices. Therefore, he prays that the impugned orders are bad and liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that order has been passed in accordance with law and there was deficiency as the petitioners under assessed property as the property was adjacent to the National Highway and the value was much higher that assessed in the said sale-deeds.
Confronted with the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in appeal, a copy was annexed as Annexure-4 where he has clearly mentioned that the compensation of the part of land was given by the National Highway as agricultural land. The said fact is not disputed by the authorities below. Hence, he prays that the impugned orders be set aside.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, it shows that an ex-parte report was prepared on 5.12.2019 in pursuance thereof notice was issued to which petitioners submitted reply stating therein that land in question was agricultural land. On 31.12.2020, order was passed by respondent no.3 holding that land is of residential use as nearby small plottings were going on. Further, land is adjacent to National Highway. Order dated 31.12.2020 was confirmed by respondent no.2 without considering the ground of appeal filed by the petitioners.
In the ground of appeal, it was stated that compensation given by National Highway Authority for part of land was as agricultural land. This fact was also not considered by respondent no.2. Further, petitioners were not put to notice on the ground that the respondent no.3 passed its order dated 31.12.2020.
In view of the above, the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 31.12.2020 & 12.8.2021 are set aside. The matters are remanded back for deciding afresh by respondent no.3.
The parties are at liberty to adduce the evidence in support thereof.
Any amount deposited, during the pendency of the petitions, shall be outcome of the petitions.
It is expected that the respondent no.3/District Magistrate shall decide within a period of three months.
It is made clear that any adjournment to either of the party shall be given at the cost of Rs.500/-, which shall be deposited before the next date.
It is also made clear that the matters shall not be adjourned on the ground that the advocates are abstaining from the work.
Order Date :- 19.4.2023
Pravesh Mishra
