Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Pratap Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 02 Others on 27 February, 2025
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27096
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37025 of 2019
Petitioner :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tahir Husain Farooqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard Sri Tahir Husain Farooqui, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Stamp Appeal No. 10/2016/59/66 (Computerized Case No.C201603001511) as well as the impugned order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Case No. 30/08/15-16.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide registered sale deed dated 28.03.2014, thepetitioners purchased an agricultural land after paying requisite stamp duty in accordance with the prevalent circle rate. Thereafter,a notice was issued to the petitioner no.2 to which the petitioners no. 1 & 2 filed their objection, but being not satisfied with the said objection, the respondent no.2 passed an order against which, thepetitioners preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.03.2019. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for thepetitioners submits that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the plot in question was an agricultural land and even after purchase, the land in question is an agricultural land. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits the land in question has not been declared as an Abadi land under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to which a specific ground had been taken as ground no.7 in the appeal, however the same has not been considered by the authority.
5. He further submits that a specific ground has also been taken in the instant writ petition in paragraph no17, which has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.
7. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.
8. It is not in dispute that the agricultural land was purchased by the petitioners by way of aforesaid sale deed and thereafter, the proceedings of deficiency of stamp duty have been initiated against them on the premise that in the vicinity of the property in question, residential activity was being undertaken to which a notice was issued and the petitioners submitted their objection thereto.
9. The record shows that the land in question has not been declared as an abadi land under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act to which a ground was taken by the petitioner in the appeal, but the same was not considered by the authorities, which is bad.
10. This Court in Writ- C No. 19644 of 2016 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) in para nos. 16 & 20 has held as under:-
"16. In view of the definition of land contained in the law relating to land tenures, i.e. U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, the fact that the land was not declared as Abadi under section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 as explained under section 3(14) of the said Act, in itself becomes a relevant factor for determining the nature of land that was subject matter of instrument. This Court in various authorities has held that when the land is purchased for agricultural purposes and declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act, 1950 has not been made and merely because the land is situated in close vicinity of the non-agricultural land, the same would not loose its character as the agricultural land for the purposes of levy of stamp duty. Reference can be made to few authorities of this Court in the case of Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad and another, reported in 2000 (3) AWC 2587; Smt. Sushila Verma vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2006 (2) AWC 1492 and Sudama vs Chief Controlling Authority and others, reported in 2013 (4) AWC 3571.
xxxx
20. Insofar as the imposing four times penalty is concerned, it is well settled that unless "mens rea" is established on the part of the purchaser, no penalty can be imposed, even if the provision of penalty is a creation of statute. Regarding imposition of penalty, reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Asha Kapoor vs Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad and others, reported in 2008 (72) ALR 125, where this Court has held that penalty can be imposed if there is an attempt to evade the stamp duty and penalty presupposes culpability and an intention to conceal or to play fraud with the authorities. I do not find any finding on record, whereunder any opinion has been formed by the respondent-Authorities that the petitioner defrauded the Government having mens rea at the time of getting the sale deed executed. Even the annexures to the writ petition disclosing the nature of land have not been disputed by the State in the counter affidavit. I also find that the sale deed in question conforms to the statutory requirements of disclosure of necessary particulars as per rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules of 1997. Therefore, imposition of penalty is also contrary to law of the land."
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Any amount deposited by thepetitioners pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh order to be passed by the authority concerned.
Order Date :- 27.2.2025
Pravesh Mishra
