Allahabad High Court
Savitri Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 1 February, 2024
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9378
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 947 of 2024
Petitioner :- Savitri Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue,Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmana Singh,Himanshu Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Soni, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3.
2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of order dated 28.01.2019, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent no. 3 in Case No. 110 of 2018 in re: State vs Smt. Savitri Devi under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 whereby the petitioner had been required to pay additional stamp duty, registration charges and penalty. Also under challenge is the order dated 12.04.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
4. The sole legal ground taken by the petitioner while challenging the aforesaid orders is that a perusal of the order impugned dated 28.01.2019 would indicate that the competent authority while passing the said order had only placed reliance on the report of Sub-Registrar dated 27.12.2017 on the basis of which proceedings had been initiated under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899.
5. Placing reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachha vs State of U.P. and another, 2005 SCConline Allahabad 2247 the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said inspection report would only be relevant for initiating proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 but not for deciding the case while only placing reliance on the said report and having no other material before it.
6. Armed with the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the order impugned dated 28.01.2019 to contend that a perusal of the said order would indicate that reliance has only been placed on report of Sub-Registrar, Amethi dated 27.12.2017 and after recording admission of averments / findings of the said report the order impugned dated 28.01.2019 has been passed and no other material or report has either been called for or considered.
7. The argument is that when reliance could not validly have been placed on the said report as such it was the duty of the authorities to have called for a further report as provided in Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 and the same not having been done the order impugned becomes patently vitiated on this ground alone.
8. On the other hand, Shri Vikram Soni, learned Standing counsel is unable to controvert the aforesaid proposition of law as enunciated by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra).
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, what emerges is that the order impugned dated 28.01.2019, which has been passed by the competent authority, has only been passed on the basis of report submitted by the Sub-Registrar dated 27.12.2017. No other material has been considered by the competent authority while requiring the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty.
10. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra) wherein this Court has held as under:
"25. It has been found in several cases like the present one that the entire basis of determination of market value for the purpose of stamp duty is ex-parte report of Tehsildar or other officer. Ex-parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of Stamp Act. However, for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report. After initiation of the case inspection is to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule-7(3) (c) of the Rules of 1997. Moreover in the inspection report distance of the property from other residential or commercial properties and road must be shown and wherever possible sketch map must also be annexed alongwith the report so that correct valuation may be ascertained with reasonable certainty."
11. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it emerges that though an ex-parte report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47A of the Act, 1899 but for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report and after initiation of the case, notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule- 7(3)(c) of the Rules, 1997 is a must.
12. Accordingly, considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra) it emerges that the order impugned dated 28.01.2019 as passed by the competent authority does not adhere to the aforesaid proposition of law in as much as no other material except for the ex-parte report as submitted by the Sub-Registrar has been considered by the competent authority. This aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 12.04.2023.
13. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 28.01.2019 and 12.04.2023, copies of which are annexures 2 & 1 to the petition respectively, are quashed. The matter is remitted to the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3 to pass a fresh order after due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned in accordance with law which order would be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 1.2.2024
J.K. Dinkar
