Point of Law: Land Declaration - Deficiency in stamp duty - District Revenue Authorities rightly proceeded to hold deficiency of stamp duty on basis of fact that once declaration was made in the year 2005 under Section 143 of Act, 1950.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri J.N.Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel for respondents-State.

2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22.3.2021 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal under Section 56(1-A) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter called as “Act, 1899”) and order dated 25.10.2018 passed by respondent No.3 in Case No.740 of 2015 in proceedings under Section 47-A of Act, 1899.

3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are that petitioner had purchased the agricultural land of Khasra No.637 measuring about 0.105 Hectare situated at Mauza Sunrakh Bangar, Tehsil and District Mathura vide registered sale deed dated 08.05.2013. A stamp duty of Rs.78,200/-was paid according to the circle rate. The proceedings under the Act, 1899 was initiated at the behest of Additional Commissioner Stamp, Mathura on 25.7.2015 and notice under Section 47-A of Act, 1899 was issued. An objection was submitted by the petitioner denying any deficiency in stamp duty and it was specifically stated that Khasra Nos.637 and 604, whose original tenure holder was Smt. Sharda Devi Motiwala and Smt. Manju Vani Devi and one Ruchi Agrawal. A declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as “Act, 1950”) was made by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mathura on 16.7.2005. It was in the year 2009 that on the application moved in respect of these two khasra numbers that on the report of Tehsildar dated 07.09.2009, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mathura proceeded to declare the said land as ‘agricultural’ under Section 144 of the Act, 1950. It is further averred that once the land was declared as ‘agricultural’, the petitioner had purchased the same through registered sale deed on 08.05.2013 and had paid stamp duty as per the circle rate. The respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner Stamp Mathura, after considering the objection filed by petitioner, vide detailed order dated 25.10.2018, held that there was deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.3,52,000/-and imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/-and further directed that interest at the rate of 1.5% per month will be levied till the date of payment of balance amount of stamp duty along with penalty from the date of execution of the document.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal under Section 56(1-A) of Act, 1899 was preferred before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Deputy Commissioner Stamp Agra. The Appellate Authority found no substance in the appeal of the petitioner and after recording a finding, dismissed the same upholding the order passed by respondent No.3.

5. Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the proceedings before respondent No.2 and submitted that Section 56(1-A) of the Act, 1899 envisages that the appeal has to be decided by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and not by the Deputy Commissioner and thus the appellate order dated 22.3.2021 was patently illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Neetu Agarwal and another vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others, Writ Petition No.6600 (MS) of 2009 decided on 17.12.2009 by the Lucknow Bench of this Court as well as decision in Writ-C No.33694 of 2013 (Yogesh Kumar and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) decided on 14.6.2013.

6. The second limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the earlier declaration made under Section 143 of Act, 1950 in the year 2005 was recalled and the land was declared as ‘agricultural’ under Section 144 of Act, 1950 in the year 2009 and the petitioner having purchased the said land in the year 2013 was not liable to pay stamp duty on the basis of t