Allahabad High Court
Giriraj Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Agra vs State Of U.P. And Others on 1 August, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
1
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123439
Reserved on 23.07.2024
Delivered on 01.08.2024
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10513 of 2010
Petitioner :- Giriraj Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Agra
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arpit Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
WITH
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1780 of 2010
Petitioner :- Rasik Bihari Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd.
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arpit Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Shri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.C. Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Since the similar controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petitions, the same are being decided together with this common judgment.
3. For convenience, the facts of Writ- C No. 10513 of 2010 is being delineated:-
4. By means of this writ petition, the following prayer has been made:-
"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 23.07.2004 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Agra in Stamp Case No. 1083/2003, under Section 33/47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) as well as 18.01.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra in Stamp Appeal No. 244 of 2003-04 (wrongly termed as Nigrani) under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, Giriraj Sehkari Awas Samiti Limited Vs. State of U.P. (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition)
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents not to coerce/harass the petitioner towards realization of the alleged deficient amount of stamp duty, penalty, interest etc. pursuant to the orders impugned;
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents to refund to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,23,076/- deposited by the petitioner at the time of filing of the stamp appeal alongwith interest @ Rs. 18% per annum from the date of such deposit i.e. 30.07.2004 till date of actual realization of the amount;
(iv) ..........
(v) ..........."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner has purchased an agricultural land by way of Sale deed dated 24.04.2013 and paid the due stamp duty thereof. Thereafter, respondent no.3 issued a notice on 11.02.2003 to the petitioner to show cause as to why deficiency towards stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 3,58,400/- be not recovered from the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his reply. He further submits that on 08.07.2004, an report was submitted based on alleged ex-parte inspection, the impugned order dated 23.07.2004 holding the deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 2,69,000/- and penalty to the tune of Rs. 5,5,20/- (total amount being Rs. 2,74,520/-) along with interest @ 1.5% per month from the date of registration of the sale deed till the realization of the amount, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal specifically stating therein that there is violation of Rule 7 (3) (C) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Act, 1997, but in spite of that the said appeal has been dismissed. He prays for allowing the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that issue in hand has already been settled by this Court in various judgments but still the authorities are taking different view. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No.20752 of 2015 (Jagroop Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), decided on 15.07.2024.
7. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that the petitioner has not paid the legitimate stamp duty and therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed.
8. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased an agricultural land by way of Sale deed dated 24.04.2013 and thereafter, the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act were initiated, but in spite of the specific ground having been taken in the memo of appeal with regard to non compliance of Rule 7 (3) (C) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Act, 1997, no finding was recorded with regard to the same. The petitioner has also taken the grounds in the writ petition as mentioned above, which has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.
10. This Court in the case of Jagroop Singh (supra) has held that in absence of compliance of rule 7 (3) (C) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Act, 1997 the impugned orders cannot be justified. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:-
"It is admitted that the sale deed of the vacant plot was executed on 20.10.2012 in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of ex-parte report, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and in pursuance thereof notice was issued but the Collector has not visited the site in question in accordance with Rule 7 (3) (C) of the Rules. Even the respondent authority up to the stage of this Court could show any material in order to justify that prior to initiation of the proceedings, Section 7 (3) (C) of the Rules was complied with in letter and spirit."
11. Since in the case in hand, the Collector without visiting the site, initiated proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the impugned orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
12. In view of the above facts as stated above as well as law laid down by this Court, the impugned orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed.
13. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.
14. Any amount deposited by the petitioners, during the pendency of the instant writ petition, shall be refunded to them along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of deposit to till actual payment is made, within a period of one month from today.
Order Date :-01.08.2024
Pravesh Mishra/-
