Allahabad High Court
Ghanshyam vs State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Revenue Lko ... on 21 February, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11348
Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28566 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ghanshyam
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Revenue Lko And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hem Chandra Bajpai,Surya Bhan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Surya Bhan Singh learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 22nd June, 2015 passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act whereby deficiency in court fees alongwith penalty and interest have been imposed. Also under challenge is the order dated 24th November, 2015 passed in revision under Section 56 of the Act.
3. It has been submitted that by means of impugned order, the property in question situate in gata No. 1895 having an area of 0.190 Hectares out of which 0.064 Hectares of agricultural property was purchased by petitioner by means of sale deed dated 18th December, 2014 has been declared to be non agricultural.
4. It is submitted that a perusal of impugned order passed under Section 47-A of the Act will make it evident that same has been passed only on the basis of initial spot inspection report dated 23rd January, 2015 without any subsequent inspection having taken place. It is submitted that the order even otherwise was passed on an ex parte basis and in revision preferred thereagainst, a specific ground has been taken that the order has been passed on the basis of spot inspection report dated 23rd January, 2015 which is in violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of Rules of 1997.
5. It is also submitted that the inspection report dated 23rd January, 2015 being only in the nature of initial spot inspection report, its utility was only for the purposes of initiation of proceedings whereafter it was mandatory upon the opposite parties to have conducted fresh spot inspection with adequate notice for presence of petitioner. It is submitted that provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules 1997 have already been held to be mandatory in nature and therefore its violation vitiates the order.
6. Learned counsel also submits that despite ground specifically regarding violation of Rules having been taken in appeal, the appellate order has not adverted to same.
7. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that the said spot inspection was conducted within just one month of the sale deed in which it was clearly established that construction was existing on the property in question leading to inescapable conclusion that the property was not being used for agricultural purposes. He has also adverted to Section 27 of the Stamp Act to submit that since the facts and amount of duty chargeable was not truly set forth to the instrument of transfer, the authorities were very well within jurisdiction to have imposed penalty and interest thereupon.
8. It is also submitted that the aspect that there was no specific order passed under Section 143 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act would also be meaningless since they operate in a different field of together as has been held in the case of Haroon Ahmad versus State of U.P., writ petition No. 50302 of 2009.
9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the order passed under Section 47-A of the Act, it is evident that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of spot inspection report dated 23rd January, 2015. The said spot inspection report is the sole basis of passing the impugned order under Section 47-A-3 of the Act. The said order has also been passed on an ex parte basis indicating that adequate notice was served upon the assessee, who failed to appear. The order under Section 47-A does not at all advert to the fact as to whether any spot inspection was undertaken by the authorities after initiation of proceedings.
10. It is also evident from the memorandum of revision that the petitioner has specifically taken a ground with regard to violation of Rule 7(3)(C) of Rules of 1997, which have not been adverted to at all by the appellate authority.
11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Ganga Ram versus State of U.P. and others, 2020 (38) Lucknow Civil Decision 1991 has clearly held that provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of Rules of 1997 to be mandatory in nature. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as follows:-
"25. Under the U.P. Stamp Valuation of Property Rules, 1997, Rule-7 provides the procedure on receipt of a Reference or when suo motu action is proposed under Section 47-A of the Act. Rule 7(2)(c) provides that the Collector may inspect the property after due notice to parties to the instrument.
26. The complete reading of the aforesaid Rule clearly indicates that while deciding the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, the Collector or any other officer authorized to determine stamp duty, is required to make an inspection after due notice to the parties to the instrument. The proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act shall not be decided merely placing reliance on the ex-parte report of the Sub Registrar or the Tehsildar for that purpose."
12. It is also evident from a perusal of aforesaid Rule that the initial spot inspection report was only for the purposes of initiation of proceedings under Section 47 and could not have been relied upon by the opposite parties for final adjudication of deficiency of court fees.
13. It is also evident from the impugned orders that neither any subsequent spot inspection was undertaken after initiation of proceedings under Section 47 of the Act and even otherwise the said report being ex parte in nature, could not have been relied upon.
14. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 22nd June, 2015 passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and order dated 24th November, 2015 passed in revision under Section 56 of the Act are hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. The petition therefore succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Order Date :- 21.2.2025
prabhat
