Allahabad High Court
Leemank Developers Private Limited vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 24 April, 2025
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62575
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33515 of 2022
Petitioner :- Leemank Developers Private Limited
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav,Divyansh
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33598 of 2022
Petitioner :- Leemank Developers Private Limited
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav,Divyansh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Since the similar issues are involved in the aforesaid writ petitions, the same are being decided together by this common order.
3. For convenience, the facts of Writ- C No. 35515 of 2022 are being delineated here.
4. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by respondent no.2 in Appeal No.1945 of 2021; Computerized Case No. C202113000001945 as well as order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No.01472 of 2020; Computerized Case No.D202013590001472.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agricultural plot was purchased on 10.10.2019 after paying the requisite stamp duty thereof, but after a lapse of more than nine months from the date of execution of sale deed, an ex-parte spot inspection report dated 04.08.2020, without giving any notice or information to the petitioner, was prepared and the same was forwarded by the S.D.M. Sadar, Rampur to the respondent no.3 on 14.08.2020 and the respondent no.3 registered a case and issued a notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner filed his objection specifically stating therein that an ex-parte report was prepared to which the petitioner was never put to any notice, however, order dated 28.09.2021 was passed against the petitioner holding the deficiency of stamp duty along with two times fine and 1.5% interest per month from the date of execution of the sale deed dated 10.10.2019. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner wherein in para no.4, it has also specifically stated that an ex-party report was prepared as no notice or information was provided to the petitioner, however, the authorities without considering the same, passed the order impugned and rejected the appeal of the petitioner.
6. He further submits that the land in question is still being used as an agricultural land as regard thereto, specific grounds were taken up to the appellate stage, but no weightage has been given to the same. Herein the present writ petition, the said grounds have been raised, which have not specifically been denied in the counter affidavit.
7. He further submits that land in question is still being used as an agricultural land during the present litigation and at present, paddy crop is standing over the land i question.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.
9. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.
10. The record shows that an ex-parte report was submitted and in pursuance thereof, the proceedings of deficiency of stamp duty were initiated against the petitioner and a notice was issued to it to which the specific objection was filed stating that it was incumbent upon the Collector concerned to make a spot inspection in compliance of Rule 7 (3) (C) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, however, the same was not considered. Thereafter, an appeal was filed wherein the said specific ground was also taken and in the present writ petition as well, but none of authorities have considered the same nor any finding has been recorded.
11. This Court in the case of Jagroop Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ C No. 20752/2015 decided on 15.07.2024], has held that in absence of compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, the impugned order cannot be justified. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:-
"7. 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 exparte 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.
8. This Court in the case of Ajay Agrawal (supra) has held as under:-
9. Nonetheless, in view of submissions advanced by learned State counsel, the question arising for determination would be whether compliance of Rule 7(3)(c) is required in proceedings under Section 47(A)(1) as well as under section 47 A(3) of the Act? Here it is also relevant to indicate that both the orders impugned in present writ petition are based only on the aforesaid spot inspection report, which admittedly was ex parte in nature.
...
14. It is quite discernible that the starting provision of Rule 7 itself indicates the applicability of the Rule to the extent that on receipt of a reference or where action is proposed to be taken suo motu under section 47 A the Collector shall issue notice to parties to the instrument to show-cause. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it evident that no distinction whatsoever has been carved out under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997 with regard to procedure being required to be followed under section 47 A. On the contrary, it specifically indicates that the aforesaid Rule is required to be followed even in case suo motu action is taken under section 47 A of the Act, which in effect pertains to Section 47 A(3) of the Act of 1899 with regard to determination of stamp duty after registration of a document of instrument of transfer. As such no such distinction having been carved out under Rule 7, it is not feasible to accede to the submissions of learned State counsel that Rule 7 (3)(c) of the Rules would not be applicable in case of proceeding under section 47 A( 3) of the Act.
...
20. In view of aforesaid, it is evident that the power to be exercised by Collector under section 47A (3) of the Act is not pedantic in nature but is required to be made on the basis of observations made hereinabove particularly with regard to the fact that he is required to apply his mind and record subjective satisfaction not only with regard to under valuation of the instrument of transfer but also to record a separate satisfaction regarding market value of the property and the duty payable thereupon and cannot place reliance only on the spot inspection report.
?.
22. Upon applicability of aforesaid in the present case, it is evident from a reading of the impugned orders that the same are based only on the spot inspection report and no subjective satisfaction at all has been recorded by the authority either under section 47 A or under section 56 of the Act as required to be done as per observation is made hereinabove.
9. Again this Court in the case of Satendra and another (supra) has held as under:-
11. On a pointed query being made to the learned Standing Counsel as to whether there was any further inquiry after the inquiry was initially held in the form of spot inspection, learned Standing Counsel could not point out either from the record or pleadings of the counter affidavit that any further inquiry was held as contemplated under the Rule 7 of the Rules.
12. This Court notices that after the notices were issued and the Collector had fixed date inviting objections, the Collector failed to fix any further date for spot inspection or for any further oral or documentary evidence and therefore, it cannot be said that the Collector at all undertook any effort to act in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the matter. The conclusion drawn therefore, is devoid of any cogent and convincing material in support there of and the findings therefore, are liable to be held as perverse. The said rule which has been quoted herein above, has also drawn attention of Full Bench in Smt. Pushpa Sarin v. State of U.P. 2015 (127) RD 855. However, the Full Bench did not delve into the issue any further regarding the scope and applicability of the Rules because the period which was in dispute under the reference was prior to the rule coming into force. Para 18 of the judgment of Full Bench runs as under:
"18. Subsequently, the provisions of the Stamp Rules in regard to valuation were replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 which have been made in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 27, 47-A and 75 of the Stamp Act. However, it is not necessary for the Court to express any view on the scheme or provisions of those rules since the period of dispute in the present reference is prior to the enforcement of those rules."
10. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.2.2015 and 20.8.2013 are hereby quashed."
12. In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed.
13. In view of the above facts as stated, the matter requires re-consideration.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned for deciding afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing all the stakeholder, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
15. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh order to be passed by the authority concerned.
Order Date :- 24.4.2025
Pravesh Mishra
