Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
The Institute Of The Franciscan Clarist Sisters Thru President – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Secretary Registration U.P. Govt. And Ors. – Respondents
WRIT C No. 23232 of 2007
Decided on : 18-02-2020
Stamp Act - Section 47-A - Petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act purchased a property by means of a sale deed whereby agricultural from a Co-operative Society for a total sale consideration - The said land being agricultural land, the stamp duty was paid in terms of the Property Valuation Rules, valuing the property which was the prescribed rate by the Collector, for agricultural lands and consequently, the stamp duty was paid thereupon – Held, on the basis of the judgments of this Court, and placing reliance on Rule 3 (1) (A) of Stamp Valuation Rules, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the orders passed and impugned in the present writ petition are wholly against the provisions of law and in the teeth of the judgments of this Court as well as in the teeth of the Stamp Valuation Rules. The orders impugned are further bad in law, as they do not even take into consideration the exemplar cited in the form of order dated 14.8.2000 passed in respect of a similarly situated property in the same village, in which a conveyance was executed on 3.11.1999. Thus, the orders impugned are perverse on that count also - impugned order are set aside – Petition allowed (Paras 30 and 31).
Facts of the Case
Notice was served upon the petitioners in exercise of powers under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act proposing to redetermine the stamp duty. The petitioner-society filed its objections specifying therein that the land in question was an agricultural land and the entire area in the vicinity was undeveloped and thus for the purposes of valuation, the property was valued on the rates specified for agricultural properties and thus requested that show cause notice be dropped. An affidavit was also filed by the petitioner-society specifically stating therein that no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was made in respect of the property in question.
Finding of the Court:
On the basis of the judgments of this Court, and placing reliance on Rule 3 (1) (A) of Stamp Valuation Rules, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the orders passed and impugned in the present writ petition are wholly against the provisions of law and in the teeth of the judgments of this Court as well as in the teeth of the Stamp Valuation Rules. The orders impugned are further bad in law, as they do not even take into consideration the exemplar cited in the form of order dated 14.8.2000 passed in respect of a similarly situated property in the same village, in which a conveyance was executed on 3.11.1999. Thus, the orders impugned are perverse on that count also - impugned order are set aside.
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act purchased a property by means of a sale deed dated 29.10.1998, whereby agricultural plots no. 774, 775, 784, 785, 786, 787, 789 and 790 admeasuring 9 Bigha, 12 Biswa from a Co-operative Society for a total sale consideration of Rs. 25 Lakhs. The said land being agricultural land, the stamp duty was paid in terms of the Property Valuation Rules, valuing the property at Rs. 66,36,000/-, which was the prescribed rate by the Collector, Agra being Rs. 30 Lakhs per hectare for agricultural lands and consequently, the stamp duty was paid thereupon.
2. A notice was served upon the petitioners in exercise of powers under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act proposing to redetermine the stamp duty. The petitioner-society filed its objections specifying therein that the land in question was an agricultural land and the entire area in the vicinity was undeveloped and thus for the purposes of valuation, the property was valued on the rates specified for agricultural properties and thus requested that show cause notice be dropped. An affidavit was also filed by the petitioner-society specifically stating therein that no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was made in respect of the property in question.
3. In support of the contentions of the petitioner-society, a copy of the revenue records as well as the map of the village showing that the village is not even connected to any road and the property was surrounded by agricultural plots was filed and evidence in the form of a sale deed dated 3.11.1999 in respect of the land in the same village, was also filed, wherein stamp duty was charged at the rate of Rs. 30,000,00/-per hectare and in proceedings arising out of the said sale deed, an order had been passed in case no. 1223 of 1999 by the respondent no. 2 himself holding that there were no deficiency in the stamp duty. The petitioner has also filed herein a Government Order dated 13th August, 1999, in which directions have been issued directing that the future use of the property should not be the basis for computation of the stamp duty.
4. Despite the said objections, the respondent no. 2 vide his order dated 28.1.2003 passed an order holding that there was deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 19,90,200/-and further a sum of Rs. 50,000/-was imposed as penalty. Thus, the petitioners were directed to pay a total amount of Rs. 20,40,200/-.
5. A perusal of the said order reveals that the deficiency in stamp duty was imposed on the ground that the land in question has been sold by a Co-operative Housing Society and the purpose of the society is not to sell lands for agricultural purposes and further that the purchaser is a Christian Institution and as per the terms of the sale deed, the intention is to construct an Educational Institution thereupon and as such it was not possible to accept that an agriculture activity can be carried out over the property in question. It was also observed that on an inspection of the property in question, it was clear that no development had been carried out over the property in question and the property was being used for agricultural purposes. However, proceeded to hold that the stamp duty should be calculated for residential accommodations and on that basis proceeded to assess the deficiency of stamp duty, as recorded above.
6. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, in which as an interim measure, an interim order was passed on 8.4.2003 directing the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of the disputed amount and the balance was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
7. Ultimately vide order dated 12.1.2007, the appeal was dismissed on merits affirming the order passed by respondent no. 2, on the grounds on which the earlier order was passed.
8. Challenging the said two orders being order dated 28.1.2003 as well as the order dated 12.1.2007, the present writ petition has been filed.
9. I have hea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
