Allahabad High Court
Abdul Bari And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113382
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41566 of 2003
Petitioner :- Abdul Bari And Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- M. Islam,Ahmad Saeed
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Asif holding brief of Sri Ahmad Saeed for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The dispute in the present writ petition pertains to valuation of agricultural bhumidhari plot No.170 area 380 Kari situated in Village Chak Sikthi, Tappa Behrozpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh in regard to which sale deed was sought to be registered in favour of the petitioner on 23.4.1994 in the office of Sub Registrar, Azamgarh. The said land was assessed to Rs.42,000/- on which stamp duty of Rs.5250/- was paid.
3. It is submitted that after a lapse of more than six years notice under Section 47-A of Indian Stamps Act was issued on 14.9.2000 where it was stated that valuation of the said land is more than on which the stamp duty has been paid and accordingly the petitioner was asked as to why he be not required to pay additional duty on the sale deed. The petitioner filed his objections to the said notice stating that the notices were issued beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 47- A (3) of U.P. Stamps Act in as much as the said notice ought to have been issued within a period of four years from the date of the registration while it was issued after nearly six years. The matter was decided by Collector Azamgarh by means of order dated 30.11.2002 rejecting the objections and holding the said land to be in close proximity to the abadi and also that the same is being used for the purpose of housing and not for agricultural purposes. It is in aforesaid facts that an amount of Rs.43250/- was imposed a penalty upon the petitioner.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of Collector, preferred an appeal before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority who had also rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
5. With regard to his objection that the notice was given beyond the period of limitation it was held that a notice was issued on 3.2.1996 to the petitioner but pursuant to which no proceedings were held and the present proceedings were initiated only subsequently when notice dated 14.9.2000 was issued to the petitioner in this regard. It is further stated that the proceedings are not held beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 47-A(3) and with regard to other objections it was recorded that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Collector that the land is in close proximity to the abadi in as much as spot inspection was conducted on 16.8.2003 where the petitioner himself was present and accordingly the the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. Apart from setting aside the order of Collector, the Additional Commissioner (Adm) was also of the view that valuation of the said land was Rs.450/- per square meters and accordingly revised the order of the Collector and directed the petitioner to deposit enhanced stamp duty treating the land to be valued at Rs.450/- per square yard.
6. Assailing both the orders present writ petition has been filed. With regard to the question of limitation, the notice dated 3.2.1996 was neither produced by the respondents and even otherwise the same was never served upon the petitioner and consequently no proceedings were initiated or conducted in pursuance of the said notice. It is stated that the notice itself was non-est and could not be taken note of while deciding the question of limitation against the petitioner. He submits that had the said notice been produced before any of the authorities below the petitioner would have got opportunity to rebut the notice itself or the procedure in pursuance of the said notice. He submits that admittedly the notice dated 14.9.2000 was received by the petitioner for the first time and the proceedings have been initiated in pursuance of the said notice.
7. Learned Standing counsel in this regard has supported the impugned order and stated that there is no merit in the arguments raised by the petitioner. With regard to the aspect of limitation it was submitted that the notice was issued on 3.2.1996 which is within the period of four years and, hence, there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Collector in this regard.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. This Court is of the considered view that for examining the legality of the proceedings issued in pursuance of the notice dated 3.9.1996 it was necessary that the said notice be produced before the competent authority who could have examined and verified the record and consequently could have returned a finding that the proceedings were, in fact, initiated in pursuance of the said notice. Neither a copy of the said notice was produced before the prescribed authority or before this Court in the present writ petition nor is there any material to indicate that proceedings were initiated and continued in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 3.2.1996. This finding is also based on the fact that subsequently notice was issued after a very long lapse of time for nearly about six years.
10. The State was not aggrieved by the order of Collector, Azamgarh and accordingly no appeal was preferred by the Collector. Before the Collector only the petitioner's appeal was there which was decided on the ground mentioned therein. In case, the Commissioner was of the opinion that the Collector has wrongly valued the land it was open for him to have recorded a finding in this regard and remitted the matter back to the Collector to decide the matter afresh and re-determine the stamp fee and to pass appropriate orders thereon but it was not open for the Commissioner to himself record deficiency in the stamp duty and direct the petitioner to pay deficient amount of the stamp duty.
11. In this regard, the order is infirm in as much as there was no notice given to the petitioner before enhancing the value of the land and in any view of the matter exceeded his jurisdiction, which was limited to deciding the appeal and the Commissioner accordingly decided the appeal and set aside the order of Collector Azamgarh illegally and arbitrarily. It is in aforesaid circumstances that this Court is of the view that the order of Collector as well as the Commissioner are infirm and accordingly set aside.
12. The matter is remitted back to Collector, Azamgarh to decide the matter afresh after perusing the record and after satisfying himself about existence of service of notice dated 3.2.1996.
13. It is expected that he shall take appropriate decision in the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned in accordance with law, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.
14. The amount already deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid proceedings shall be adjusted in the orders which would be passed by the Collector in pursuance of the judgment of this Court.
15. The writ petition, thus, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
