Allahabad High Court
Charan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 29 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:98151
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 58674 of 2014
Petitioner :- Charan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J.
1. Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated August 1, 2013 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Stamp, Agra and the appellate order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, UP at Allahabad on July 23, 2014.
3. The case of the petitioner is extremely simple wherein he submits that no spot verification was carried out as per Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules").
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies on several judgments of this Court to buttress his argument that the spot verification that is required to be carried out after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner under Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is mandatory in nature.
5. From a perusal of the records, it appears that the respondents have themselves submitted in the counter affidavit at paragraphs 9 and 11 that the inspection by the Additional District Magistrate, (F&R), District Agra was done on June 10, 2012 and a further report was filed by the Revenue Officer, on July 4, 2012. Both the reports were filed before the show cause notice that was issued to the petitioners on November, 7, 2012. The language of Section 47-(A) is quite clear that the inspection is required to be carried out subsequent to the notice provided to the petitioner and the said inspection should be carried out, as possible, in presence of the petitioner.
6. One may further look into the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ-C No. 19644 of 2016 decided on April 13, 2023) wherein the coordinate Bench has held that spot inspection has to be carried out in terms of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules. Furthermore, the Court held that burden of proof is on the State to prove that deficient stamp duty has been paid by the petitioner and the valuation of the land in question has to be made on concrete grounds. The relevant paragraphs of Raj Kumar's case (supra) are delineated below:
17. Moreover, had the allegation of the State been to the effect that though the land was purchased for agricultural purposes, but its user was immediately changed and on the date of sale deed, it was being used for any other purpose like, industrial, commercial or even residential, the situation would have been different. Even in those situations, spot inspection at the relevant point of time was a necessity, but, admittedly, in the present case, no spot inspection has been carried out. Necessity of spot inspection and its mandatory nature, with reference to Rule 7 (3) (c) of the aforesaid Rules of 1997, has been reiterated, time and again by this Court in various authorities including Ajay Agarwal and others vs Commissioner Lucknow and others, reported in 2023 (2) ADJ 561 (LB), and Ram Khelawan alias Bachcha vs State of U.P. and another, reported in 2005 (2) AWC 1087.
*****
19. The observations/findings recorded in the orders impugned are also contrary to principles of burden of proof particularly, in a case where proceedings arise out of a fiscal statute. Once the State was proceeding to impose deficient stamp duty upon the petitioner, the entire burden lay upon the State to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner made some concealment at the time of getting the sale deed executed in his favour or that within a close proximity of dates, the user of the land in dispute was changed so as to levy additional stamp duty. Nothing to this effect has been brought on record, rather, not only the findings recorded in the orders impugned are contrary to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in the State of U.P. as well as U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, but certainly contrary to the law consistently laid down by this Court.
7. In the present case, indubitably no spot verification was carried out as per the Rules, and accordingly, the impugned orders are without any basis in law and liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, I am of the view that the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in determining the value of the land.
9. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated August 1, 2013 and July 23, 2014 are quashed and set aside. The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner for the deficient stamp duty, should be returned to the petitioner along with interest @ 4 per cent within six weeks from date.
10. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2024
Vikram
(Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)
