Briesh Chandra Mishra vs State Of Up And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 605 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Briesh Chandra Mishra vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 6 May, 2025

Author: Piyush Agrawal

Bench: Piyush Agrawal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72482
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8248 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Briesh Chandra Mishra
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrit Mishra,Avneesh Tripathi,Raghwendra Prasad Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
 

1.Heard Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2.Present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No. 819 of 2013 Computer Case No. 2013015000819, under Section 47A Stamp Act as well as order dated 10.11.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 in Appeal No. 1284 of 2021 under section 56(1-A) Indian Stamp Act.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agricultural land was purchased after execution of registered sale deed dated 18.3.2013 to which stamp duty at the prevailing rate was paid. He further submits that A.D.M (Finance and Reveue) made an inspection on 21.6.2013 and submitted a report on 5.2.2014 that the property in question is a non agricultural land, i.e. residential. On the basis of the said report a case was registered and notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his objection wherein it has been clearly stated that the land in question was purchased as an agricultural land and thereafter also is used as agricultural land. In support of his claim the petitioner filed Khasra and Khatauni of the land showing the land to be used as agricultural. Not being satisfied with the objecton the order dated 27.11.2020 was passed holding deficiency of stamp duty. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the order dated 10.11.2023 without considering the material on record.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question at the time of its purchase was agricultural and was used thereafter as agricultural but on the basis of the spot inspection that land was surrounded by bounary wall and abadi exist nearby, therefore, the land of the petitioner is treated as abadi land instead of agricultural land. He further submits that proceedings under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 have not been initiated declaring the land in question as non agricultural land. The said issue was raised but none of the authorities have considered the same and therefore, on this ground also the impugned orders cannot be sustained. He further submits that just to secure the land the boundary wall has been raised and it will not change the nature of the land. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Sighal and another vs. State of U.P. and others ( Writ C No. 62532 of 2010 decided on 29.4.2025); Raj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others (2023 (5) ADJ 676); M/s Madhuri Builders vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ C No. 8857 of 2024 decided on 9.4.2025).

5.Per contra, learned standing counsel supports the impugned orders and submits that at the time of spot inspection on 18.12.2019 in the presence of the petitioner, the land was surrounded by boundary wall and some constructions were being undertaken which has not been denied by the counsel for the petitioner. He further relied upon the survey report dated 21.6.2013 where the survey of Khasra No. 837 was being made which was adjacent to Khasra No. 45 of the petitioner and finding has been recorded that some residential activity was found over the plot in question. He further submits that spot inspection was made within three months from the date of purchase of the land in question.

6.Rebutting the said submission learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspection relied upon by the State and respondent is dated 21.6.2013 and which is not of plot in question but some Khasra No. 837 which is adjacent to plot in question and the petitioner was never put to notice about such survey, therefore it cannot be relied upon. Further in the spot inspection dated 18.12.2019 no residential activity was found at the plot in question though the said survey was conducted after more than six years of its purchase, no adverse inference can be drawn on the said survey. He further submits that the date of purchase of the land in question is relevant, therefore, on the date of its purchase the land was agricultural, in support of which Khasra and Khatauni was filed, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition, which has not been denied at any stage.

7.After hearing the earned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.

8.Record shows that the land in question has been shown as agricultural land at the time of purchase. It appears on spot inspection that the proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the premises of deficit stamp duty. The petitioner in his objection has specifically filed Khasra and Khatauni of the relevant date on which the land was purchased showing crops of wheat was grown up over it. Further adverse view has been drawn against the petitioner that the land in question was governed/ surrounded by the boundary wall and abadi exists nearby. Record further shows that the survey was conducted on 18.12.2019 in the presence of the petitioner which fortifies the plot in question was surrounded by boundary wall and some construction activities were found but in the survey report no finding has been recorded that some abadi exists at the time of its purchase. Further Khasra and Khatauni filed by the petitioner showing wheat crops were grown up there, has not been denied at any stage. Record further shows that specific ground was taken that proceeding under section 143 of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has not been initiated declaring the land as non agricultural. Record also shows that on the basis of the survey report the impugned orders have been passed.

9.The issue with regard to non declaration of land as non agricultural has been settled by this Court in favour of the petitioners in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sighal (supra); Raj Kumar (supra) and M/s Madhuri Builders (supra). Record also shows that no finding has been recorded that nature of the land has been changed from agricultural to non agricultural as held in the above noted judgments of this Court. In absence of such finding no adverse view can be drawn merely on the basis of the survey that too when no residential activity was found over the same.

10.In view of the above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.

11.The writ petition succeeds and is allowed

12.However, any amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded with interest @ 4% from the date of deposit till actual payment is made.

Order Date :- 6.5.2025

samz