Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Rashid S/O Sagir Ahmad vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda ... on 21 February, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11390
Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1005440 of 2010
Petitioner :- Mohammad Rashid S/O Sagir Ahmad
Respondent :- Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Misra,Sabir Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sabir Ali, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 5. The opposite party no.6 merely being a complainant, notice is dispensed with.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 12.05.2006 passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and the order dated 20.12.2007 rejecting petitioner's appeal under Section 56 of the Act. Also under challenge is the order dated 26.06.2010 whereby recall application preferred by petitioner has been rejected.
3. It has been submitted that petitioner purchased the property in question through a sale deed dated 06.01.2006 pertaining to Gata No. 1486-Ka having an area 0.138 hectares in the village in question whereafter complaint was preferred by one Kallu son of Sukai on which basis, proceedings under Section 47-A (3) of the Act were initiated.
4. It is submitted that a perusal of the order dated 12.05.2006 passed under Section 47-A will make it evident that the same is on an ex parte basis and places reliance only on certain documents produced by Lekhpal concerned at the time of hearing to indicate that property in question was adjacent to abadi land.
5. It is submitted that once suo motu cognizance was being taken under Section 47-A (3) of the Act, which was incumbent upon authority concerned to have initiated spot inspection in terms of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 and the said proceedings could not have been adjudicated against petitioner only on the ground of availability of certain records with Lekhpal.
6. It is further submitted that proximity of the property in question to an abadi area is irrelevant particularly where impugned order does not even discuss the nature of use of property in question.
7. It is submitted that appellate Court as well has ignored the aforesaid proposition which, although, was taken in memorandum of appeal.
8. He has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of State of U.P. and others versus Ambrish Tandon and another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 566 and Pushpa Sareen v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2015(33) LCD 1575.
9. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that proceedings were initiated on the basis of complaint under Section 47-A (3) of the Act and as per report submitted by Lekhpal, it became clear that gata in question was adjacent to village population and within a radius of 100 meters. It is submitted that report stated that houses were also constructed in some part of plot in question which clearly indicated the fact that plot was residential and not agricultural in nature due to which deficient stamp duty was imposed upon petitioner.
10. It is submitted that aforesaid aspect has also been considered and adjudicated upon by appellate authority as well as by rejecting recall application.
11. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the order passed under Section 47-A (3) of the Act, it is evident that proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint under Section 47-A (3) of the Act. The order dated 12.05.2006 is based completely on documents which were available with Lekhpal at the time of hearing and has adjudged that plot in question is non-agricultural owing to the fact that it is adjacent to an abadi area. There does not appear to have been any spot inspection taken place to arrive at a finding that plot in question was within 200 meters from the abadi area.
12. The provisions of Section 47-A (3) of the Act read with Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules of 1997 clearly indicate that once suo motu cognizance is being taken by Collector with regard to any allegation of deficient stamp duty, a spot inspection is required to be carried out with prior notice to the assessee.
13. In the case ofGanga Ram versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 (38) LCD 1991, it has been held that provisions of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules of 1997 are mandatory in nature.
14. In the case ofAmbrish Tandon (supra), it has been specifically held that mere proximity of a plot in question to an abadi or constructed area would be irrelevant for purposes of determination of deficiency of stamp duty since it is the user of the plot in question which would be relevant.
15. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that findings have been recorded by authorities under Section 47 and Section 56 of the Act without any spot inspection and merely on the basis of proximity of plot in question to abadi area.
16. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is evident that impugned order have been passed not only inviolation of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules of 1997 but also law enunciated by this Court in the case of Ganga Ram (supra) and by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambrish Tandon (supra)
17. In view of aforesaid, impugned orders dated12.05.2006, 20.12.2007 and 26.06.2010 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari.
18. It is provided that in case any amount has been deposited by petitioner in pursuance of impugned orders, refund of the same shall be effected by authorities concerned within a period of four weeks from the date application for such refund is preferred by petitioner alongwith a certified copy of this order.
19. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Order Date :- 21.2.2025
Satish
