Allahabad High Court
Ramanand Dixit And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 October, 2025
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188294
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17570 of 2025
Ramanand Dixit & 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. & 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Harshdeep Kushwaha, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Shri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 as well as the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that vide registered sale deed dated 29.12.2021, the petitioners purchased an agricultural land after paying requisite stamp duty. Thereafter, on the basis of the ex parte spot inspection report dated 27.06.2022, proceedings under section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioners and vide impugned order dated 16.08.2024, deficiency of stamp duty, along with interest and penalty, was imposed treating the land to be non-agricultural, against which the petitioner preferred appeal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 09.04.2025.
4. Learned senior 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, 1950 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 judgements of this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others [2023 (5) AWC 4511], Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2005 SCC Online All 2247] and Smt. Somlata Tanwar Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2017 (2) AWC 1625].
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.
7. The record shows that the land in question was, admittedly, purchased as an agricultural land. Thereafter, the proceedings of deficiency of stamp duty were initiated against the petitioners holding the land in question as non-agricultural land and on the basis of the ex parte report, proceedings were initiated against the petitioners.
8. The Revenue authorities have failed to bring on record any cogent material showing that before execution of the sale deed in question, the land in question was declared as non-agricultural land under Section 143 of the UP ZA & LR Act.
9. This Court in Raj Kumar (supra) 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 aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgement, 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 petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be refunded to them within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(Piyush Agrawal,J.)
October 28, 2025
Amit Mishra
