Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Alok Mathur, J.
Anil Kumar Gupta @ Rajendra Gupta and Others – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 45294 of 2010
Decided On : 20-04-2023
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -Section 56 (1-A) and 47-A/33- Sale deed – Consideration – Challenged - Petitioner that respondent No.5 had sold a land measuring 0.0405 square meters of gata No.863 through registered sale deed dated and he has further paid sufficient court fee on consideration which was agreed between parties as mentioned in sale deed - Assistant Stamp Commissioner / Collector Stamp Duty issued notice to petitioner after registering a case on ground that petitioner had not paid adequate stamp duty for registration of the said plot and notices were issued as to why deficit amount be not recovered from petitioner - Petitioner had responded to said notice and submitted his reply to Sub Divisional Magistrate - Petitioner has purchased agricultural land standing in name and proceedings have been initiated on basis of a false complaint at behest of one - He further submits that adequate consideration of stamp duty has been paid and, hence, prayed that notice issued to him may be discharged - Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities concerned. He has further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that a two story building was existing on the plot purchased by the petitioner which was not disclosed in the sale deed. [Para 7]
Finding of Court : Undoubtedly, as recorded in order of Commissioner himself such a request was made by the petitioner in appeal preferred by him - When such a request is made then it is mandatory upon authorities concerned to exercise powers conferred under Section 7 (3) (c) of Rules of 1997 and inspect property after giving due notice to parties and only then proceed with matter - In case aforesaid exercise has not been conducted valuable right vested in the person who is put under notice is lost and valuable right cannot be exercised by him and procedure as prescribed is required to be followed in letter -Undoubtedly, as recorded in order of Commissioner himself such a request was made by the petitioner in appeal preferred by him - When such a request is made then it is mandatory upon the authorities concerned to exercise powers conferred and inspect property after giving due notice to parties and only then proceed with matter - In case aforesaid exercise has not been conducted valuable right vested in person who is put under notice is lost and valuable right cannot be exercised by him and procedure as prescribed is required to be followed in letter and spirit and not inspecting property even after application made by petitioner is clearly arbitrary and illegal and proceeding with matter without exercising power conferred under Section 7 (3) (C) respondents have clearly proceeded in illegal and arbitrary manner while holding that petitioner was liable to pay stamp duty even for double story house which was standing on said plot.
Result : Writ petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri R. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 to 4.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.3.2008 passed by Assistant Stamp Commissioner/ Collector, Stamp, Fatehpur as well as the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Allahabad Divisions, Allahabad thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 56 (1-A)of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. He has also challenged the consequential orders wherein recovery citation dated 26.7.2010 has been issued for realization of the deficient stamp duty.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.5 had sold a land measuring 0.0405 square meters of gata No.863 through registered sale deed dated 21st February, 2007 and he has further paid the sufficient court fee on consideration which was agreed between the parties as mentioned in the sale deed. Assistant Stamp Commissioner / Collector Stamp Duty issued notice to the petitioner after registering a case on the ground that the petitioner had not paid adequate stamp duty for registration of the said plot and notices were issued as to why the deficit amount be not recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner had responded to the said notice and submitted his reply to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Fatehpur.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has purchased the agricultural land standing in the name of Phool Singh and proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a false complaint at the behest of one Ram Sajiwan. He further submits that adequate consideration of stamp duty has been paid and, hence, prayed that the notice issued to him may be discharged. Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) considered the response of the petitioner rejected his defence and upheld the fact that the petitioner had not paid adequate consideration of stamp duty. He took into account the fact that according to the sale deed the agricultural plot was purchased but on the spot two storied house was existing the valuation of which was not included in the sale deed and accordingly there was deficiency in the stamp duty paid by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 5.3.2008 passed by Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Fatehpur preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Allahabad under Section 56(2) of the Stamp Act. The Commissioner also did not find any merit in the plea taken by the petitioner and affirmed the order of Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Fatehpur by dismissing the appeal by means of order dated 30.11.2009.
6. Assailing both the orders of the authorities learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the authorities concerned have not followed the procedure established under Section 47-A of U.P. Stamp Act as well as Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Properties), Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997). He submits that entire proceedings were initiated only on the basis of a complaint made by one Ram Sajiwan and without ascertaining any of the facts the respondents have proceeded on the ground that a two story house was existing on the plot purchased by the petitioner and consequently there was deficiency in the court fee. He has further submitted that the petitioner had requested the respondents to inspect the property after due notice to the parties in exercise of the powers under Section 7(2) (c) of the Rules of 1997 but no such inspection was conducted and the respondents proceeded to reject the contention of the petitioner and upheld the deficiency in stamp fee in the said instrument sought to be registered by the petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had taken specific plea before the Commissioner in his appeal where this aspect of the matter has been duly recorded by him that the petitioner has sought an indepen
The necessity of conducting a spot inspection before determining stamp duty to ensure assessments are based on factual evidence rather than presumptions.
The Collector must follow due process and provide notice before determining stamp duty; reliance on ex-parte inspections without evidence contravenes procedural laws.
Point of Law : It is incumbent upon the Collector while conducting the inquiry on initiation of a stamp case under Section 47A, to inspect the property in question in the presence of the parties and ....
Procedural non-compliance in property valuation hearings renders resulting orders invalid, necessitating fresh proceedings to ensure parties are duly notified and allowed to participate.
The matter is remitted to the respondent no.2 or the competent authority who may be seized of the matter, to assess the market value taking into account the monetary consideration reflected in the ex....
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.
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
