Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Mohd. Qasim Khan and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. Board of Revenue Alld. and Ors. - Respondents
Writ - C No. 7909 of 2016 With Writ - C No. 7933 of 2016
Decided On : 07-04-2022
U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950 - Section 143 - Stamp Act - Section 47A, 47A(3) - U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 - Rule 3, 6, 7 - Petitioners had bought two plots of land situated in Village through sale deed was bought for total sale consideration - Whether in future purchaser puts to land into residential use or changes character is immaterial for payment of stamp duty - Person presenting the instrument is required to disclose the nature of economic activity, industrial development, if any, prevailing in the locality where the property is situated and to mention any other special feature affecting the value of the property as per Rule 3 and Rule 6 of the Stamp Rules, 1997 (Para 18).
Findings of the Court :
Court finds from a perusal of this sale deed filed as Annexure to petitions that land in question was not bought for purpose of carrying out agricultural activity, it had been bought for commercial purposes - With regard to specific plea raised by petitioner that no notice was ever served upon him and therefore it can be presumed that proceedings were initiated only in 2014 and thus barred by limitation, this Court has found, perusal of pleadings on record including orders impugned, and report, that proceedings were initiated on basis of an on spot inspection carried out, reference itself was made - Just because petitioner avoided service till 2014, it cannot be said that proceedings were initiated in 2014.
Result : Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondents.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had bought two plots of land situated in Village Obri Deeh, Pargana Sadaullah Nagar, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur through sale deed dated 17.03.2008 from One Shri Ahmad Rasheed. Plot No. 1697 admeasuring 0.2390 hectares was bought for total sale consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- only, Plot No. 1696 admeasuring as 0.2390 hectares was also purchased which is adjacent land through sale deed dated 05.03.2008, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- from the same vendor i.e. Shri Ahmad Rasheed. No notice was ever served upon the petitioner for initiation of proceedings under Section 47A (3) of the Stamp Act till 2014. After six years from the date of the sale deed i.e. on 15.11.2014, the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Balrampur with reference to a letter dated 20.10.2014 sent by the District Collector carried out the spot inspection of the land in question and submitted his report. The petitioner having been issued notice for the first time after the report dated 15.11.2014 submitted his objections, but the same were not considered.
3. It has been submitted that in the impugned order mention has wrongly been made that the proceedings were initiated on the report of the Sub-Registrar, Utraula dated 18.03.2008 which was approved by the Assistant Inspector General (Registration) on 19.03.2008. Fraudulent order sheet were prepared in the Court of opposite party no.3 i.e. Collector, Balrampur showing that on 30.05.2008, the case was put up for orders and date fixed for 02.07.2008 for service of notice. Thereafter, 77 dates had been fixed from 20.08.2008 till 10.02.2014 but no report regarding service of notice on the petitioners was submitted then on 10.03.2014 an order was passed fixing 28.04.2014 for arguments. On 19.05.2014, an order was passed for issuance of notice to the petitioner again and date of 16.06.2014 was fixed. It was for the first time after such date was fixed that notice was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners put in appearance on 23.01.2014 and sought time for filing objections. Time was granted and date of 08.09.2014 was fixed for filing objections. The petitioners filed their objections on 20.09.2014 alongwith an application for spot inspection to be done. Spot inspection was not done and a fraudulent report submitted on 15.11.2014 on the basis of which the impugned order was passed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that under Section 47A of the Stamp Act, if an instrument is undervalued immediately after presentation of such instrument and before accepting it for registration, the Registrar/Registering Officer shall require the person liable to pay stamp duty, to pay deficient stamp duty and on failure to do so return the instrument for presenting again. Under Section 47A (3) of the Act the Collector may, Suo motu, or on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamps, or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps, or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps, or any officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf, initiate proceedings with respect to deficiency in payment of stamp within four years from the date of registration of any instrument, and examine the instrument with regard to correctness of the market value of the property and if, after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of the such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value of the duty payable thereon.
5. It has been submitted that under the Proviso of Section 47A(3), an action can be initiated even after a lapse of four years from the date of registration of instrument, but prior permission of the State Government is required. No prior permission has been taken, but the sale deed executed in March, 2008 have b
Point of Law : Person presenting the instrument is required to disclose the nature of economic activity, industrial development, if any, prevailing in the locality where the property is situated and ....
The Collector must follow due process and provide notice before determining stamp duty; reliance on ex-parte inspections without evidence contravenes procedural laws.
Stamp duty on agricultural land cannot be evaluated at residential rates without a legal declaration, reinforcing the agricultural character despite proximity to residential properties.
Agreement to sell – Imposition of enhanced stamp duty and penalty – Power of Collector cannot be unduly circumscribed by ruling out potential to which land can be advantageously deployed at the time ....
The necessity of conducting a spot inspection before determining stamp duty to ensure assessments are based on factual evidence rather than presumptions.
The potential use of land at the time of sale is critical in determining stamp duty, and the burden of proof lies with the state to show that the correct duty was not paid.
The court emphasized the authority's power to determine fair market value based on potential land use at the time of execution or a reasonably proximate period, not circumscribed by circle rates.
The exercise of suo motu powers under Section 47A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act requires a clear demonstration of how the interests of revenue are prejudiced by prior orders, and failure to provide such....
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
