Back
2010 Supreme(All) 368
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
Ashish Kumar and others -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others -Respondent
W.P. No. 6187 of 2008 (M/S)
Decided On : 29-01-2010
Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, Advocate, for Petitioner.
Sri M.B. Singh, Advocate, SC, for Respondents.
The central legal point established is that the nature of the land at the time of execution of the sale deed should determine the stamp duty treatment, and a declaration under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is necessary to treat the land as industrial/commercial for stamp duty purposes.
Headnote:
The petitioners purchased agricultural land and executed a sale deed. Subsequently, authorities initiated proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act alleging deficiency in stamp duty due to the land being used for industrial purposes. The court considered the nature of the land at the time of execution of the sale deed and referred to relevant case law and Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It held that unless a declaration is made under Section 143, the land should be treated as agricultural for stamp duty purposes. The impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioners were entitled to a refund of the deposited amount.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners purchased agricultural land and executed a sale deed. Authorities alleged deficiency in stamp duty due to the land being used for industrial purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land should be treated as agricultural for stamp duty purposes unless a declaration is made under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the authorities were right to demand stamp duty treating the land as industrial/commercial or whether it should be treated as agricultural land as recorded in the revenue records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the land at the time of execution of the sale deed should be considered, and unless a declaration is made under Section 143, the land should be treated as agricultural for stamp duty purposes.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioners were entitled to a refund of the deposited amount.
Heard Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri M. B. Singh, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
2. Under challenge in the writ petition is the orders dated 10.04.2008 and 05.12.2005 passed by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 contained as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ, order or direction commanding the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 05.12.2005 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, District Barabanki.
3. The petitioners had in fact purchased the agricultural land and the sale deed of the plot i.e. 6/7th part of plot no. 1295 situated at Village Jauras, Haidergarh, District Barabanki was executed on 12.10.2004. It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of the execution of the sale deed the land in question was recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records. It is alleged that subsequently after the execution of the sale deed the authorities had taken suo motu proceeding under the Indian Stamp Act with respect to alleged deficiency in the stamp duty in the purchase of the plot in question. In this regard Tehsildar, Haidergarh had submitted the report regarding the deficiency of the stamp mentioning therein that the land in question is being used for industrial purpose. In this regard the opposite party no.3 had issued the notice under section 47-A dated 6.07.2005 to the petitioners to which a reply was submitted by the petitioners on 05.09.2005 The Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Barabanki had made spot inspection on 19.11.2005 and thereafter by order dated 05.12.2005 the order enforcing the deficiency to the tune of Rs. 1,29,580/- was passed. It was in pursuance of the said order that the petitioners had deposited the Rs. 50,000/- on 15.09.2007.
4. The petitioners feeling aggrieved had filed the appeal under section 47-A/33. In the said appeal it was specifically pleased that the land in question is an agricultural land and at the time of the execution of the sale deed it was registered as agricultural land in revenue records. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the impugned order dated 05.12.2005 is manifestly wrong and illegal as unless a declaration is made under section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, declaring the land to be as commercial or industrial land, the opposite parties cannot presume it to be an industrial land and demand the stamp duty treating it to be industrial land.
5. Sri M. B. Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit has submitted that from the report dated 27.04.2005 of Tehsildar, Haidergarh and the inspection report of A.D.M., Finance & Revenue, Barabanki, it is very much clear that the land in question was being used for the purpose of brick kiln and the land being used for commercial purposes. The stamp duty shall be paid treating the land in question as industrial/commercial land.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of argument has admitted that after the execution of sale deed of the land in question, certain portion is agricultural and some portion of the land is being used for brick kiln.
7. The sole question for consideration before this Court with respect to the purpose of determining the stamp duty on the land in question is as to whether the authorities were right to demand the stamp duty treating the land in question to be as industrial/commercial or whether the land in question should be treated as agricultural land as recorded in the revenue records, for the purpose of determining the stamp duty.
8. I have considered the various submissions made by the parties concerned.
9. From the records it is evident that the sale deed of the land in question was executed on 12.10.2004 and on the date of execution of the sale deed the land in question was recorded as agricultural land. The learned counsel for the petitioners h
