Allahabad High Court
Umawati Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 15 May, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37206
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4073 of 2024
Petitioner :- Umawati Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue U.P. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Pathak,Adarsh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Gyanendra Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of petitioner is taken on record.
3. Since the grounds taken in writ petition can easily be ascertained by means of impugned orders and do not require any further evidence or averments to be brought on record, the petition is being adjudicated upon at the admission stage itself as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in A.I.R. 1978 SC 851.
4. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 14.11.2022 passed under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 whereby deficiency in instrument of transfer dated 23.01.2020 has been indicated. Also under challenge is the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the appellate authority rejecting petitioner's appeal.
5. It has been submitted that a perusal of the order passed under Section 47A will make it evident that the same is based solely on the initial spot inspection report dated 29.07.2022 and no subsequent spot inspection was ever undertaken by the prescribed authority following provisions of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997.
6. It is submitted that this Court has already held that the initial spot inspection report which even otherwise was ex parte in nature can be a basis for initiation of proceedings under Section 47A but cannot be the sole basis for its determination.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid ground had specifically been taken in the memorandum of appeal but have been completely ignored by the appellate authority who has rejected the appeal without considering aforesaid facts.
8. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that the plot in question which is subject matter of the sale deed is situate on the Bahraich, Bhinga four lane highway and has industrial use and therefore there is no error in passing the impugned order.
9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident from a perusal of the order passed under Section 47A of the Act that proceedings were initiated in pursuance of spot inspection report dated 29.07.2022 indicating location of the plot in question near the four lane highway. The order does not indicate any subsequent spot inspection undertaken in compliance of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules of 1997. In fact the ex parte report dated 29.07.2022 forms the basis of the impugned order.
10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha versus State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2005 (2) JCLR 610 (Allahabad) has already held that the ex parte report which forms the basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 47A of the Act cannot be the sole basis for determining valuation and deficiency of Stamp Duty.
11. Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules of 1997 have already been held to be mandatory in nature in the case of Ganga Ram versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 (38) LCD 1991 whereby it is imperative in proceedings under Section 47A for spot inspection to take place after prior notice to the assessee and in his presence. It is quite evident that the rule now enunciated by this Court as mandatory has not been followed while passing the impugned order.
12. It is also evident from record that specific plea with regard to same had been taken by petitioner in paragraphs 3 & 5 of the memorandum of appeal which have not been considered by the appellate authority.
13. In view of aforesaid discussion, it being evident that the impugned orders dated 14.11.2022 passed in Case No. 334 of 2022 and the appellate order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the appellate Court in Case No. 1625 of 2022 not being in accordance with law are hereby set aside granting liberty to the prescribed authority to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 47A but to determine the same only in accordance with statutory provisions and judgments rendered by this Court. The opposite party no. 3 i.e. Collector/District Magistrate, District- Shrawasti is hereby directed to keep in mind the law enunciated by this Court on the subject as well as mandatory provisions of the Act and Rule7 (3) (c) of the Rules of 1997 while adjudicating case under Section 47A of the Act.
14. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.
Order Date :- 15.5.2024
Satish
