Kamlesh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10182 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Kamlesh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 September, 2025

Author: Piyush Agrawal

Bench: Piyush Agrawal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:156423
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - C No. - 2690 of 2018   
 
   Kamlesh And Another    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Awdhesh Narayan Srivastava, Kamla Singh, Sudhir Kumar Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 7
 
   
 
 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.      

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Abhishek holding brief of Mrs. Kamla Singh for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 5.7.2006 the petitioner purchased residential plot after paying requisite stamp duty in accordance with the prevalent circle rate. He submits that notice was issued to the petitioners on 11.8.2006 to which the petitioners filed their objection on 1.5.2008 with request to make spot inspection but on the basis of the report dated 6.8.2008, the proceedings under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated on the premise that the property in question is having commercial value. Thereafter, the petitioner has again challenged the said order in appeal which has been dismissed in a cryptic manner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the land in question was having residential use and no commercial activity was going on. He further submits that the authorities were required to make spot inspection in accordance with Rule 7 (3) (c) of UP Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997 but no spot inspection was made in the presence of the petitioner.

5. He further submits that in the grounds of appeal, a specific plea has been made that there is no compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of UP Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997, but the impugned order has been passed without considering the grounds taken in the grounds of appeal.

6. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in Jagroop Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ C No. 20752/2015 decided on 15.07.2024], M/s Uttaranchal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCRA & Others [Writ C No. 12727/2012, decided on 06.03.2024] and Charan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others [Writ C No. 58674/2014, decided on 29.05.2024].

7. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that the petitioner's land was having commercial value, which was wrongly described as residential land and therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.

9. It is not in dispute that the property was purchased in the year 2006 and impugned orders indicates that compliance of Rule 7(3) (c) of the Rules has not been made. The proceedings under section 47-A of the Stamp Act were initiated on the basis of inspection report, which has been made in the absence of the petitioner, but in spite of the specific ground having been taken in the memo of appeal with regard to non-compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, no finding was recorded with regard to the same.

10. This Court in Jagroop Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ C No. 20752/2015 decided on 15.07.2024] has held that in absence of compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, the impugned order cannot be justified. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:-

"7. It is admitted that the sale deed of the vacant plot was executed on 20.10.2012 in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of exparte report, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and in pursuance thereof notice was issued but the Collector has not visited the site in question in accordance with Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules. Even the respondent authority up to the stage of this Court could show any material in order to justify that prior to initiation of the proceedings, Section 7 (3) (c) of the Rules was complied with in letter and spirit.

8. This Court in the case of Ajay Agrawal (supra) has held as under:-

9. Nonetheless, in view of submissions advanced by learned State counsel, the question arising for determination would be whether compliance of Rule 7(3)(c) is required in proceedings under Section 47(A)(1) as well as under section 47 A(3) of the Act? Here it is also relevant to indicate that both the orders impugned in present writ petition are based only on the aforesaid spot inspection report, which admittedly was ex parte in nature.

...

14. It is quite discernible that the starting provision of Rule 7 itself indicates the applicability of the Rule to the extent that on receipt of a reference or where action is proposed to be taken suo motu under section 47 A the Collector shall issue notice to parties to the instrument to show-cause. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it evident that no distinction whatsoever has been carved out under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997 with regard to procedure being required to be followed under section 47 A. On the contrary, it specifically indicates that the aforesaid Rule is required to be followed even in case suo motu action is taken under section 47 A of the Act, which in effect pertains to Section 47 A(3) of the Act of 1899 with regard to determination of stamp duty after registration of a document of instrument of transfer. As such no such distinction having been carved out under Rule 7, it is not feasible to accede to the submissions of learned State counsel that Rule 7 (3)(c) of the Rules would not be applicable in case of proceeding under section 47 A( 3) of the Act.

...

20. In view of aforesaid, it is evident that the power to be exercised by Collector under section 47A (3) of the Act is not pedantic in nature but is required to be made on the basis of observations made hereinabove particularly with regard to the fact that he is required to apply his mind and record subjective satisfaction not only with regard to under valuation of the instrument of transfer but also to record a separate satisfaction regarding market value of the property and the duty payable thereupon and cannot place reliance only on the spot inspection report.

?.

22. Upon applicability of aforesaid in the present case, it is evident from a reading of the impugned orders that the same are based only on the spot inspection report and no subjective satisfaction at all has been recorded by the authority either under section 47 A or under section 56 of the Act as required to be done as per observation is made hereinabove.

9. Again this Court in the case of Satendra and another (supra) has held as under:-

11. On a pointed query being made to the learned Standing Counsel as to whether there was any further inquiry after the inquiry was initially held in the form of spot inspection, learned Standing Counsel could not point out either from the record or pleadings of the counter affidavit that any further inquiry was held as contemplated under the Rule 7 of the Rules.

12. This Court notices that after the notices were issued and the Collector had fixed date inviting objections, the Collector failed to fix any further date for spot inspection or for any further oral or documentary evidence and therefore, it cannot be said that the Collector at all undertook any effort to act in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the matter. The conclusion drawn therefore, is devoid of any cogent and convincing material in support there of and the findings therefore, are liable to be held as perverse. The said rule which has been quoted herein above, has also drawn attention of Full Bench in Smt. Pushpa Sarin v. State of U.P. 2015 (127) RD 855. However, the Full Bench did not delve into the issue any further regarding the scope and applicability of the Rules because the period which was in dispute under the reference was prior to the rule coming into force. Para 18 of the judgment of Full Bench runs as under:

"18. Subsequently, the provisions of the Stamp Rules in regard to valuation were replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 which have been made in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 27, 47-A and 75 of the Stamp Act. However, it is not necessary for the Court to express any view on the scheme or provisions of those rules since the period of dispute in the present reference is prior to the enforcement of those rules."

10. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.2.2015 and 20.8.2013 are hereby quashed."

11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.

12. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

13. The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner either pursuant to the impugned orders or in pursuance of the direction made by this Court, along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of refund, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

(Piyush Agrawal,J.)

September 4, 2025

Rahul Dwivedi/-