Allahabad High Court
Smt. Suman Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5376 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Suman Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp And Registration And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjai Srivastava,Rajesh Chandra Dixit,Tanya Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
Petition has been filed assailing order dated 26th September 2014 passed under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act 1899 and order dated 27th September, 2018 passed by revisional court under Section 56 of the Act.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had purchased an agricultural property by means of instrument of transfer pertaining to gata No. 596 having an area 0.526 Hectare situate in village Neemsar, Pargana Aurangabad, Tahsil Mishrikh, District Sitapur. The instrument of transfer was executed on 8th April, 2013 on which stamp duty was paid treating it to be agricultural in nature. Additional stamp duty was also paid since the property in question abutted a brick-way on one side and nearby abadi. However the stamp duty was found deficient and matter was referred for consideration under Section 47-A of the Act which also found deficiency of stamp duty and revision against order has also been rejected.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the entire basis of impugned order is the spot inspection report dated 20th January, 2014, which in itself was ex parte in nature and was therefore not in consonance with Rule 7 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of property) Rules, 1997. It is further submitted that even otherwise primary ground for rejecting submission of petitioner is that at the time of execution of instrument of transfer on 9th April, 2013, the property in question abutted the brick-way but at the time of spot inspection, a metalled road abutted the property and as such the stamp duty was required to be paid in view of changed circumstances. It is submitted that it is settled law that stamp duty is required to be calculated as per situation and location of the property in question as on the date of execution of instrument of transfer and subsequent changes are not required to be taken into account as has been done in the present case. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P and others versus Ambrish Tandon and another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 566.
Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that order impugned correctly records the fact that stamp duty has been paid treating the property in question to be adjacent to brick-way whereas a finding of fact has been recorded that it actually abuts a metalled road. It is submitted that aforesaid finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of spot inspection conducted on 15th January, 2014 report with regard to which was submitted on 20th January, 2014. It is submitted that the petitioner has never objected to the report being ex parte in nature particularly since the memorandum of revision has not been been brought on record to substantiate such a ground having been raised before the authorities concerned and as such new factual plea can not be taken at the stage of writ proceedings. Learned State Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Haroon Ahmad and another versus State of U.P. and others passed in Writ-C No. 50302 of 2009 to submit that mere fact that land user of property in question has not been changed in accordance with Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act would not confer any benefit to the petitioner with regard to finding recorded in the impugned order.
Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, it is apparent that instrument of transfer dated 8th April, 2013 was presented for registration on 9th April, 2013 whereafter spot inspection was carried out on 16th January, 2014 and report with regard to same was submitted on 20th January, 2014 indicating deficiency in stamp duty on the ground that property in question abuts a metalled road and not a brick-way as well as the fact that no agricultural activity could be seen on the property in question.
The aforesaid spot inspection report has been made basis of the impugned orders passed under Sections 47-A and Section 56 of the Act. It is a relevant fact that instrument of transfer was executed on 8th April, 2013 and was presented for registration on 9th April, 2013 but the spot inspection was carried out only on 16th January, 2014 i.e. about 9 months after the presentation for registration.
It is not the case of opposite parties that at the time of execution of instrument of transfer, the property in question did not abut a brick-way. It is settled law that stamp duty is required to be imposed on the basis of situation and location of the property in question as on the date of execution of instrument of transfer as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Ambrish Tandon (supra). The aforesaid judgment has also thereafter been followed by Full Bench of this court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Sareen versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2015 (33) LCD 1575 to the following effect:-
"29. The fact that the land was put to a particular use, say for instance a commercial purpose at a later point in time, may not be a relevant criterion for deciding the value for the purpose of stamp duty, as held by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. 23 Ambrish Tandon and another, 2012 (5) SCC 566. This is because the nature of the user is relatable to the date of purchase which is relevant for the purpose of computing the stamp duty. ........"
Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present case, it is evident that impugned orders are based on spot inspection report conducted after almost nine months of the execution of instrument of transfer and its presentation for registration. As such the impugned orders are clearly based on circumstances changed possibly after execution of the instrument of transfer. As has been held in the judgments referred to herein above, the change of future circumstances subsequent to execution of instrument of transfer can not be a valid ground for imposition of stamp duty.
Considering the aforesaid facts and law on the point, the impugned orders being clearly against the law enunciated on the point are hereby set aside.
Consequently the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in pursuance to the impugned orders, an amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs has been deposited by petitioner with the authorities concerned. In view of the fact that petition stands allowed, liberty is granted to petitioner to move an application before the concerned authority for refund of the additionally deposited amount which shall be paid to the petitioner within maximum period of three months from the date of presentation of the application before the concerned authority.
Order Date :- 6.1.2023
prabhat
