Allahabad High Court
Pratibha Gupta And 2 Others vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 9 October, 2025
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:179170
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38152 of 2018
Pratibha Gupta & 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U P & 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Arpit Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Shri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 21.11.2013, the petitioner purchased an agricultural land. Thereafter, on the basis of the ex parte spot inspection, proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 17.08.2015, deficiency of stamp duty, along with interest and penalty, was imposed, against which the petitioner preferred appeal, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.07.2018.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the land in question was agricultural land and no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was made. He further submits that no notice was served upon the petitioner before the spot inspection. He further submits that the character of the land cannot be the basis of its future potential and as such, the impugned order is bad in law. In support of this submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Writ- C No. 19644 of 2016 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others).
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.
6. Upon hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.
7. The record shows that the land in question was admittedly purchased as an agricultural land. Thereafter, the proceeding of deficiency of stamp duty were initiated against the petitioner holding to be the land in question as non-agricultural land, on the basis of the ex parte report, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.
8. The Revenue authorities have failed to bring on record any cogent material showing that the land in question has been converted into non-agricultural land, as required under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act.
9. This Court in Writ- C No. 19644 of 2016 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) in para no. 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.
xxxxx
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."
10. 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.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
12. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be refunded to him within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(Piyush Agrawal,J.)
October 9, 2025
Amit Mishra
