Allahabad High Court
Bajai Hindustan Limited Gola Gokarnan ... vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority ... on 24 November, 2025
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Reserved on :17.9.2025
Delivered on :24.11.2025
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:76995
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 1001317 of 2000
Bajai Hindustan Limited Gola Gokarnan Nath Pargana
..Petitioner(s)
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Anors.
..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
V.k.pandey, S C Dixit, Sanjay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.,
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed as under :-
"(i) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased enough to issue a writ order in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.9.1997, passed by the opposite party No.2 and also to quash the order dated 25.2.2000, passed by the opposite party No.1, annexed with this writ petition as Annexure Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the interest of justice.
(ii) that this Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to pass an interim order to the effect that the operation and implementation of the order dated 12.9.1997, passed by the opposite party No.2, annexed with this writ petition as Annexure No.1 and the order dated 25.2.2000, passed by the learned opposite party No.1, annexed with this writ petition as Annexure No. may be stayed.
(iii)..."
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner purchased certain bhumidari agricultural land through registered sale deeds dated 21.03.1996 and 29.03.1996, upon which due stamp duty, calculated on the circle rate then prevalent, was duly paid. The lands in question, as per the revenue records of Fasli 1403 and 1407, were recorded as agricultural and were in fact under cultivation, with sugarcane crops standing at the time of purchase.
4. Subsequently, in the year 1996, proceedings were initiated by respondent No. 2 under Section 14-A of the Indian Stamp Act on the allegation of deficiency of stamp duty. The proceedings were not based on the present user of the land but upon a presumption that, as the petitioner is a sugar factory, the land in future might be diverted for industrial use and thereby ought to be valued at commercial rates. In this connection, the Tehsildar concerned was also directed to submit a report.
5. The petitioner filed objections, accompanied with an affidavit, categorically asserting that the land was exclusively agricultural, that cultivation was being carried on, and that there was no proposal or intention to establish any factory upon the land. Despite such reply, the respondent No. 2, by order dated 12.09.1997, rejected the objections and directed the petitioner to deposit enhanced stamp duty and registration fee, recoverable as arrears of land revenue, holding that in future the land might be used for industrial purposes.
6. The petitioners challenge to the said order was dismissed in revision on 25.02.2000 by the respondent No. 1, who reiterated that though the land was agricultural on the date of purchase, the presumption remained that in future it could be utilised for industrial purposes and therefore liability to pay duty at commercial rates was attracted.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was, on the date of purchase, admittedly agricultural as reflected in the revenue records and borne out by the fact that crops were then standing and continue to be cultivated.
8. It is submitted that the impugned proceedings rest entirely on a speculative presumption of future industrial use. It is submitted that such conjectural reasoning is unknown to law and cannot furnish the basis for imposition of stamp duty.
9. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the categorical stand of the petitioner in affidavit and objection that no industrial activity was either undertaken or intended has been brushed aside without due consideration, rendering the impugned orders arbitrary and non-speaking.
10. In support of the submission advanced, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.2872 of 2005 (MS), Seksaria Behta Sugar Factory Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors., decided on 16.12.2021, wherein it has been held that stamp duty cannot be levied on the basis of future presumption or potential value of the land.
11. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the orders dated 12.09.1997 and 25.02.2000 be quashed as being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, and that it be declared that the petitioner is not liable to pay enhanced stamp duty on the basis of presumed future user.
12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the impugned order are just and valid and do not require any interference by this Court, thus, he submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
13. After having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.
14. The revenue records and the material placed on record clearly indicate that the land in question was recorded and used as agricultural land on the date of execution of the sale deeds. There is no material to show any industrial activity or any proposal for such activity at the relevant time.
15. The reasoning adopted by the authoritiesthat since the purchaser is a sugar mill, the land might be used for industrial purposes in futureis purely conjectural and unsupported by any statutory provision. Such speculative assessment of potential future use cannot form the basis for determining stamp duty.
16. In Seksaria Behta Sugar Factory Ltd. (supra), this Court has categorically held that valuation of land for purposes of stamp duty cannot be enhanced on the basis of presumed future use or potential value, and that the nature of the land on the date of sale deed is determinative. The principle squarely applies to the present case.
17. The impugned orders proceed entirely on a presumption of future user, ignoring the admitted and recorded agricultural nature of the land. Such an approach is arbitrary, contrary to law, and unsustainable.
18. In view of the above discussion and in light of the binding precedent of this Court, the orders dated 12.09.1997 and 25.02.2000 cannot be sustained.
19. The writ petition is allowed.
20. The orders dated 12.09.1997 passed by respondent No.2 and 25.02.2000 passed by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed.
21. It is declared that the petitioner is not liable to pay any enhanced stamp duty on the basis of presumed future use of the land.
22. No order as to costs.
(Irshad Ali,J.)
November 24, 2025
Gautam
