Back
2021 Supreme(All) 1744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
Smt.Mithilesh Devi – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 17923 of 2021
Decided On : 01-09-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ganesh Kumar
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
Headnote:(A) Stamp Act - Section 47 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Section 143 - Proceedings initiated for deficiency of stamp duty on a gift deed - Authorities failed to prove that land was Abadi and not agricultural - Gift deed executed by father-in-law does not suffer deficiency of stamp duty; orders impugned quashed. (Paras 3, 10, 12, 13)
(B) Burden of Proof - It is incumbent upon the State to substantiate claims regarding land use and Abadi existence; failure to do so invalidates imposed deficiencies. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition challenged the order enforcing a penalty for alleged deficiency in stamp duty on a gift deed of agricultural land. The petitioner claimed compliance with stamp duty based on the land's classification and distance from residential areas.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the revenue authorities did not provide sufficient evidence to classify the gift property as Abadi land rather than agricultural. The orders imposing a deficiency of stamp duty were quashed.
Issues: Whether the land in question should be classified as Abadi land for the purposes of stamp duty, and whether the authorities' actions were justified based on existing evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the revenue authorities must produce tangible evidence linking the land to a residential use to substantiate claims of deficiency in stamp duty, ultimately ruling that the petitioner did not owe any deficiency.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existence of prior stamp duty deficiency proceedings (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. distance and classification of lands under dispute (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. opposing arguments regarding land classification (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's obligations regarding proof of residential use (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion on deficiency of stamp duty (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents State.
2. This writ petition arises out of order passed by respondent no. 2 dated 18.02.2019 and order dated 25.02.2021 passed by respondent no. 3 in proceedings initiated for deficiency of stamp duty.
3. Facts in brief as disclosed are that father-in-law of petitioner namely, Ramjag executed a gift deed in her favour of Plot Nos. 208, 210, 100 and 107 situated in Mauja-Tenua, Tappa-Umra, Pargana-Basti Purab, Tehsil-Bhanpur, District Basti. On a complaint made by younger son of Ramjag on 23.02.2012, proceedings for deficiency of stamp duty started on the report of Assistant Collector dated 03.05.2012. An objection was filed by petitioner stating therein that petitioner had paid stamp duty in excess of the circle rate and the land in question is quite far away from the residential area. It was also stated that no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was made and thus no occasion arises for imposing deficiency on the agricultural land holding it to be Abadi. Respondent no. 2 relying upon the report dated 07.04.2017 placed by Sub Divisional Officer held that there was deficiency of Rs.55,700/-and imposed a penalty of the same amount totalling Rs.1,11,400/-and the same was to be deposited along with interest of 1.5% from the date of execution of document.
4. Against the order of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Basti, an appeal was preferred which was rejected by Deputy Commissioner (Stamp) Basti on 25.02.2021 solely on the ground that the gift deed was executed showing it to be an agricultural land while the land had potential value to be used for residential purpose.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the report dated 07.04.2017, which has been brought on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, Gata Nos. 100, 107, 208 and 210 are situated at a distance of 30 kms. from Railway Station/Bus Station, 7 kms. from Tehsil Headquarter, 30 kms. from Nagar Palika, Basti and 400 meters from Abadi and the said land is also situated 5 kms. from the nearest market area.
6. As far as Gata Nos. 100, 107 and 208 are agricultural land while Gata No. 210 is shown to be Abadi land though the nearby plots shown in the map are all agricultural land.
7. He further contended that the proceedings for deficiency of stamp duty was initiated on the basis of complaint of younger son of Ramjag and the revenue authorities had not found any deficiency nor any objection was raised at the time of execution of document as the land is agricultural. He submitted that report of Revenue Inspector dated 25.09.2018, which has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, indicates that the said plots are not recorded as Abadi under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.
8. Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition submitted that both the authorities had recorded the concurrent finding that the land in question is Abadi and rightly arrived at a conclusion that there was deficiency of stamp duty.
9. I have heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
10. It is not in dispute that proceedings for deficiency of stamp duty under Section 47 of the STAMP ACT started on complaint of one of the sons of Ramjag who had executed gift deed in favour of his daughter-in-law. The report of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 07.04.2017 highly speaks about the placement of the land in question as a detailed report has been given wherein it is stated
