Advocates:
['GULREZ KHAN', '', 'JAVED HUSAIN KHAN', 'C S C']

1

Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2027 of 2017

Petitioner :- Smt. Sumitra Devi

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulrez Khan,Javed Husain Khan

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

Heard Shri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel

appearing for the respondents.

By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the

order dated 06.07.2016 passed by the Collector, Banda in Case

No.D201607110021 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899¹

whereby deficiency of stamp of Rs.8,99,220/- and penalty of

Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest has been imposed. Further challenge is to

the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Stamp,

Chitrakoot Dham, Banda Division, whereby the revision filed by the

petitioner under Section 56(1) of the Act, has been dismissed and the

order of the Collector has been upheld.

The facts in brief are that an instrument (sale-deed) dated

21.11.2015 was executed by a scheduled caste person in favour of the

petitioner in respect of an agricultural Plot No.1907 of an area of 1.707

hectares, after obtaining permission from the Collector under the

relevant provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms

Act, 1950 which permission was granted on 03.09.2015. It is stated that

on the date of purchase, the property in question was agricultural land

and the stamp duty was paid accordingly. It is stated that the name of

the petitioner has been mutated in place of the previous owner and she

is in physical cultivatory possession of the plot in question. Pursuant to

a report prepared by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration,

1

Act

2

Banda on 08.01.2016 alleging evasion of stamp duty, a notice dated

20.01.2016 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an

objection to the said notice stating that the land, at the time of sale, was

agricultural in nature and was being used for agricultural purpose and

no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act had been

issued for declaring it residential. It was further stated that neither any

spot inspection was done nor is the plot in question within 200 meters

from the main road and no plotting activity has been carried out

thereon. On the objection of the petitioner, the Collector, by his order

dated 25.02.2016, directed the respondent no.4, Additional District

Magistrate, to make a spot inspection of the plot in question in the

presence of the petitioner, after giving proper notice to her. Allegedly,

no notice or intimation was given to the petitioner pursuant to the order

dated 25.02.2016 and on 23.04.2016 an ex-parte order report was

submitted by the respondent no.4 before the Collector alleging that the

land in question is not an agricultural land and the same is being used

for residential purpose. It was also stated in the report that the petitioner

was informed over phone about the spot inspection but she did not turn

up for the inspection. The petitioner filed an objection to the aforesaid

report dated 23.04.2016 and denied any information or notice about the

inspection. It was further stated that the report of 23.04.2016 was totally

false and misleading and was prepared without making spot inspection.

Thereafter, the Collector, by means of the impugned order dated

06.07.2016, determined the alleged deficiency and penalty. Further, the

revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Collector was

also dismissed illegally.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the sale-deed in question was executed only after obtaining due

permission from the District Magistrate under provisions of the UPZA

& LR Act, 1950, which was granted by means of an order dated

03.09.2015. The report of the Assistant Inspector General of

Registrations dated 08.01.