SPA/176/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 172 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                      AT NAINITAL
           ON THE 14th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
                         BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH
                       CHAUHAN, C.J.

     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., through its Managing Director, Patanjali Food & Herbal Park, Haridwar-Laksar Road, Padartha Haridwar, Uttarakhand. .......Appellant

(By Shri Kailash Vasdev, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, the learned Advocate for the appellant)

AND :

1. State of Uttarakhand, through its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Land Management, Department of Revenue & Board of Revenue, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.

2. District Magistrate, Haridwar, Uttarakhand.

3. Sub-Registrar, Haridwar, Uttarakhand.

......... Respondents

(By Shri B.S. Parihar, the learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.)

This Special Appeal coming on for hearing this day before Hon'ble Division Bench (Hon'ble Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. and Hon'ble Justice

Alok Kumar Verma), Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Kumar Verma delivered the following Judgment:

Judgment

Appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed the Writ Petition No. 812 of 2020 (M/S) seeking the following reliefs:-

(1) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents not to impose condition no. 13 and thereby set aside the said condition no. 13 from the order/permission letter dated 04.05.2020 for purchase of the land by the petitioner;

(2) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents to allow the purchase of the land for which permission has been granted in the order/permission letter dated 04.05.2020 within such period as provided in the said letter to be calculated from the date of disposal of the writ petition.

2. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition on 17.08.2020 by permitting the appellant to make a representation to the Competent Authority against the Condition no. 13 contained in the permission Letter dated 04.05.2020, within two

weeks from the date of passing the order dated 17.08.2020; if such a representation was made within the stipulated period, the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Uttarakhand was directed to examine the matter and take appropriate decision thereupon, in accordance with law, within a period eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of the order. The Competent Authority was further directed while passing the final order, he shall also take decision regarding extension of time, as given in Condition no. 6 of the order of permission dated 04.05.2020.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-writ petitioner is before us.

4. In order to appreciate the issue which arises in this intra-court appeal, a brief reference to the factual background is necessary, which is as follows:-

The appellant, a Company, is engaged in the manufacturing of various products relating to Natural Health Care, Natural Food, Ayurvedic Medicines, Herbal Home Care, Natural Personal Care etc. Since the appellant was in need for establishing manufacturing units and godowns, it applied on 29.12.2018 in the standard format, as required, for permission to purchase land measuring 38.1107 Hectare, situated in the village Mustafabad, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar. All the formalities, as required, were complied with. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Uttarakhand granted

permission to the appellant vide order/permission letter dated 04.05.2020. In the said permission letter, condition no. 13 stipulates, "Stamp duty will be paid on the sale deeds of the land being purchased as per the purpose indicated in the above permission." The appellant, aggrieved by condition no. 13, filed the writ petition.

5. In writ petition, the appellant-writ petitioner relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this High Court rendered in Special Appeal No. 634 of 2015, "State of Uttarakhand and Others Vs. Graphic Era Educational Society".

6. The learned Single Judge observed that the reliance placed upon the aforesaid judgment is misplaced as, in the present case, no Stamp Duty has been demanded from the petitioner as yet. However, the question of law decided therein may be relevant. Having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case the learned Single Judge thought that the ends of justice would be met if petitioner were permitted to make a representation to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority were directed to take decision thereupon at the earliest.

7. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.S. Parihar, the learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.

8. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that the requisite stamp duty payable

for registration of sale deed is provided under the Stamp Act, as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand; the respondent no. 1 cannot on his own direct for payment of any other duty than which is provided for in the Stamp Act; the respondent no. 1 exceeded powers and jurisdiction vested in him while imposing condition no. 13; in the case of Graphic Era Educational Society (Supra), the learned Co-ordinate Bench declined the contention of the State that the purpose for which the land will be put to after its purchase would be relevant for deciding the stamp duty.

9. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, the Learned Senior Advocate, pointed out para 14 of the judgment rendered in the case of Graphic Era Educational Society (Supra). Para 14 of the Judgment is being reproduced herein:-

"Therefore, on the conspectus of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Rules, we would find that there is absolutely no scope for entertaining the contention of the appellants that the purpose for which the land will be put to after its purchase, is relevant for deciding the stamp duty. This aspect, as already noted, is not even part of the matters, which are rendered relevant in view of the provisions of Rule 4, which we have adverted to".

10. Per contra, Mr. B.S. Parihar, the learned Standing Counsel for the State would submit that the appellant intended to purchase agriculture land. Therefore, he moved an application under relevant

provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; considering the relevant facts, the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Uttarakhand has granted such permission to the appellant vide order dated 04.05.2020. Condition No. 13 has been imposed for charging stamp duty as per the purpose indicated in the sale deed for the purchase of land. Therefore, the appellant now cannot challenge the condition no.13.

11. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, considered the impugned order, and perused the case Law.

12. Chapter III of the Stamp Act, 1899 deals with Adjudication As To Stamps. Under Section 31, the Collector is empowered to adjudicate the proper stamp duty payable in respect of an instrument brought before him. The power to determine the amount of stamp duty chargeable for the instrument is, thus, contained in Section 31.

13. A Single Judge is bound to accept the judgment of a Division Bench deciding same or similar issue. This is the rule of precedent. The earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench is binding upon any latter Coordinate Bench deciding the same, or similar issues and if the latter Bench wants to take a different view than that taken by the earlier Bench, the proper course is for it to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The rule of precedent is binding for the reason that there is a desire to secure uniformity and certainty in law.

14. The law laid down by the learned Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Graphic Era Educational Society (Supra) is relevant in the instant matter.

15. Before the learned Co-ordinate Bench, the issue was as to what was the basis for fixing the value for the purpose of payment of stamp duty? The learned Co-ordinate Bench considered several provisions of law including Section 154 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, in so far as, it is applicable to the State of Uttarakhand, Sections 31, 32, 33, 47-A of the Stamp Act and Rule 3, Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand.

16. The learned Co-ordinate Bench observed, "Even in the amendment brought out by the Uttarakhand Government in 2011, besides empowering the Collector to suo motu revise the rate fixed for reasons to be recorded in writing, he may revise within a period of two years from the date of fixation of minimum value subject to what is contained in proviso (a). Clause (b) of the said proviso also enables the Government to suo motu or on application made in writing amend or reissue the circle rate of any part of the State or any specific property. We are emphasizing this aspect, as we would think that the Government, acting through its Additional Chief Secretary, would appear to be bereft of any power to issue an order providing for fixation of stamp duty with reference to the potential use to which the land can be put to."

17. The learned Co-ordinate Bench also observed that the contention of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel cannot be accepted that the land which is agricultural land will cease to be an agricultural land for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty and the future use of the agricultural land cannot convert the land at the time of sale from agricultural land to commercial land.

18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to take different view other than taken by the learned Co-ordinate Bench.

19. For the reasons stated above, this special appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No.812 of 2020 is set aside.

20. Condition No.13 of the letter/order of permission dated 04.05.2020 issued by respondent no.1 is set aside. The period mentioned in Condition No.6 is hereby extended for another period of 180 days for making necessary payment to the respondents. No costs.

(Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)

Neha/Pant