Dalip Singh v. Counsel for

with the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgement treating Writ C No. 29115 of 2017 as leading case. Writ C No. 29115 of 2017

3. By means of present petition, the petitioner is, inter alia, praying for the following relief:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated : 20.2.2017 (Annexure No. 10) passed by respondent no. 2, as well as order dated: 17.6.2016 (Annexure No. 7) passed by respondent no. 3. " 2 WRIC No. 29115 of 2017

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a registered sale deed of an agricultural land was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot nos. 1832, 1834, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847 (total area

12.145 hectare) situated in Mauja Achhnera, Tehsil Kirawali, Distt. Agra however, on the report of Sub Registrar, Kirawali Agra dated 27.7.2015, the proceedings under Section 33/47 A of Indian Stamp Act was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the land in question is an abadi land, whereas, the stamp duty has been paid as per agricultural rate. He submits that a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 23.9.2015 to which the petitioner has submitted reply on 9.12.2015, however, being not satisfied with the same, the impugned order has been passed by which deficiency of stamp together with penalty and interest has been imposed, against which the petitioner has filed a revision, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any spot inspection was made with regard to the enquiry reports dated 2.2.2016 and 8.2.2016 in compliance of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 nor any notice has been served upon the petitioner for conducting the said spot inspection. He further submits that the land in question was agricultural land at the time of execution of said sale deed and standing crop of wheat was found, which has been proved from the khasra and khatauni of the land in question. He submits that alleged spot inspect reports do not relate to the land in question but the same relate to other land upon which subsequently dairy farm was constructed. He further submits that no declaration under Section 143 of UP Z.A. & L.R. Act has been made in respect of the land in question. He submits that the Collector has determined the rate of deficiency of Stamp of Rs. 24,09,730/- whereas in the show cause notice the stamp deficiency was shown as Rs. 6,59,730/-. He submits that the impugned order cannot travelled beyond the show cause notice. He submits that this fact was specifically challenged in the grounds of revision at Serial No. 5 but the same has not been considered, further in para 12 of the writ petition the said grounds were raised but no denial has been made in para 11 of the counter affidavit.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 3 WRIC No. 29115 of 2017 & Others [2023 (5) AWC 4511].

7. Further he relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Triloki Nath Vs. State of UP, 2009 (3) AWC 2601 and Mohan Kumar Varshney and others Vs. State of UP and others 2012(5) AWC 4751 and submits that deficiency of stamp duty cannot be higher than the deficiency of stamp duty mentioned in the show cause notice, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned ACSC has supported the impugned orders.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.

10. It is not in dispute that at the time of execution of the land in question, the land in question was an agricultural land. In support of the same, the petitioner has filed khasra - khatauni of the land in question showing crops being sown, which has not been denied at any stage by the State. The land in question was treated by the authorities below as abadi. Specific objection was raised by the petitioner that no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act has been made in respect of the land in question at the time of execution of the sale deed, but the same has not been considered by the authorities below. This Court in Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2023 (5) AWC 4511] has held as under:

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that non- declaration of land as Abadi under section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 is an admitted fact. The contention of the State to the effect that the said non-declaration is not relevant in the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act cannot be accepted for the reason that in exercise of statutory powers under the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable in the State of U.P., Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 have been framed. Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, provide as follows: "Facts to be set forth in an instrument.-In case of an instrument relating to immovable property chargeable with an ad valorem duty, the following particulars shall also be fully and truly stated in the instrument in addition to the market value of the property- 4 WRIC No. 29115 of 2017 (1) In case of land- (a) included in the holding of a tenure-holder, as defined in the law relating to land tenures- (i) the Khasra number and area of each plot forming part of the subject- matter of the instrument; (ii) whether irrigated or unirrigated and if irrigated, the source of irrigation; (iii) if under cultivation whether do-fasali or otherwise; (iv) land revenue or rent whether exempted or not and payable by such tenure-holder; (v) classification of soil, supported in case of instruments exceeding twenty thousand rupees in value, by the certified copies, or extracts from the relevant revenue records issued in accordance with law; (vi) location (whether lies in an urban area, semi-urban area, or countryside); and (vii) minimum value fixed by the Collector of the district."

15. Admittedly, on the date of execution of the sale deed, the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 were applicable. The definition of "land" as contained under section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, reads as follows: (14) "Land"[except in Sections 109, 143 and 144 and Chapter VII] means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, hoticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming;

16. In view of the definition of land contained in the law relating to land tenures, i.e. U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, the fact that the land was not declared as Abadi under section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 as explained under section 3(14) of the said Act, in itself becomes a relevant factor for 5 WRIC No. 29115 of 2017 determining the nature of land that was subject matter of instrument. This Court in various authorities has held that when the land is purchased for agricultural purposes and declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act, 1950 has not been made and merely because the land is situated in close vicinity of the non-agricultural land, the same would not loose its character as the agricultural land for the purposes of levy of stamp duty. Reference can be made to few authorities of this Court in the case of Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad and another, reported in 2000 (3) AWC 2587; Smt. Sushila Verma vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2006 (2) AWC 1492 and Sudama vs Chief Controlling Authority and others, reported in 2013 (4) AWC 3571. ****

19. The observations/findings recorded in the orders impugned are also contrary to principles of burden of proof particularly, in a case where proceedings arise out of a fiscal statute. Once the State was proceeding to impose deficient stamp duty upon the petitioner, the entire burden lay upon the State to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner made some concealment at the time of getting the sale deed executed in his favour or that within a close proximity of dates, the user of the land in dispute was changed so as to levy additional stamp duty. Nothing to this effect has been brought on record, rather, not only the findings recorded in the orders impugned are contrary to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in the State of U.P. as well as U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, but certainly contrary to the law consistently laid down by this Court.

11. Further, the petitioner has raised specific objection that spot inspection was not made in compliance of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. Both the authorities below have failed to consider that no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act has been made in respect of the land in question at the time of execution of the sale deed.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court, the matter requires re-consideration by the 6 WRIC No. 29115 of 2017 respondent authorities. Accordingly the impugned orders passed in both the aforesaid writ petitions are hereby quashed.

13. Both the aforesaid writ petitions are allowed.

14. The matter is remanded to the Collector, Agra, respondent no. 3 who, after considering the evidence filed by the petitioner as well as after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, shall decide the matter, afresh, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

15. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh order passed by the Collector. September 23, 2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- (Piyush Agrawal,J.) RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

with the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgement treating Writ C No. 29115 of 2017 as leading case. Writ C No. 29115 of 2017

3. By means of present petition, the petitioner is, inter alia, praying for the following relief:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated : 20.2.2017 (Annexure No. 10) passed by respondent no. 2, as well as order dated: 17.6.2016 (Annexure No. 7) passed by respondent no. 3. " 2 WRIC No. 29115 of 2017

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a registered sale deed of an agricultural land was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot nos. 1832, 1834, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847 (total area

12.145 hectare) situated in Mauja Achhnera, Tehsil Kirawali, Distt. Agra however, on the report of Sub Registrar, Kirawali Agra dated 27.7.2015, the proceedings under Section 33/47 A of Indian Stamp Act was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the land in question is an abadi land, whereas, the stamp duty has been paid as per agricultural rate. He submits that a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 23.9.2015 to which the petitioner has submitted reply on 9.12.2015, however, being not satisfied with the same, the impugned order has been passed by which deficiency of stamp together with penalty and interest has been imposed, against which the petitioner has filed a revision, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any spot inspection was made with regard to the enquiry reports dated 2.2.2016 and 8.2.2016 in compliance of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 nor any notice has been served upon the petitioner for conducting the said spot inspection. He further submits that the land in question was agricultural land at the time of execution of said sale deed and standing crop of wheat was found, which has been proved from the khasra and khatauni of the land in question. He submits that alleged spot inspect reports do not relate to the land in question but the same relate to other land upon which subsequently dairy farm was constructed. He further submits that no declaration under Section 143 of UP Z.A. & L.R. Act has been made in respect of the land in question. He submits that the Collector has determined the rate of deficiency of Stamp of Rs. 24,09,730/- whereas in the show cause notice the stamp deficiency was shown as Rs. 6,59,730/-. He submits that the impugned order cannot travelled beyond the show cause notice. He submits that this fact was specifically challenged in the grounds of revision at Serial No. 5 but the same has not been considered, further in para 12 of the writ petition the said grounds were raised but no denial has been made in para 11 of the counter affidavit.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 3 WRIC No. 29115 of 2017 & Others [2023 (5) AWC 4511].

7. Further he relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Triloki Nath Vs. State of UP, 2009 (3) AWC 2601 and Mohan Kumar Varshney and others Vs. State of UP and others 2012(5) AWC 4751 and submits that deficiency of stamp duty cannot be higher than the deficiency of stamp duty mentioned in the show cause notice, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned ACSC has supported the impugned orders.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.

10. It is not in dispute that at the time of execution of the land in question, the land in question was an agricultural land. In support of the same, the petitioner has filed khasra - khatauni of the land in question showing crops being sown, which has not been denied at any stage by the State. The land in question was treated by the authorities below as abadi. Specific objection was raised by the petitioner that no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act has been made in respect of the land in question at the time of execution of the sale deed, but the same has not been considered by the authorities below. This Court in Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2023 (5) AWC 4511] has held as under:

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that non- declaration of land as Abadi under section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 is an admitted fact. The contention of the State to the effect that the said non-declaration is not relevant in the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act cannot be accepted for the reason that in exercise of statutory powers under the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable in the State of U.P., Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 have been framed. Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, provide as follows: "Facts to be set forth in an instrument.-In case of an instrument relating to immovable property chargeable with an ad valorem duty, the following particulars shall also be fully and truly stated in the instrument in addition to the market value of the property- 4 WRIC No. 29115 of 2017 (1) In case of land- (a) included in the holding of a tenure-holder, as defined in the law relating to land tenures- (i) the Khasra number and area of each plot forming part of the subject- matter of the instrument; (ii) whether irrigated or unirrigated and if irrigated, the source of irrigation; (iii) if under cultivation whether do-fasali or otherwise; (iv) land revenue or rent whether exempted or not and payable by such tenure-holder; (v) classification of soil, supported in case of instruments exceeding twenty thousand rupees in value, by the certified copies, or extracts from the relevant revenue records issued in accordance with law; (vi) location (whether lies in an urban area, semi-urban area, or countryside); and (vii) minimum value fixed by the Collector of the district."

15. Admittedly, on the date of execution of the sale deed, the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 were applicable. The definition of "land" as contained under section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, reads as follows: (14) "Land"[except in Sections 109, 143 and 144 and Chapter VII] means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, hoticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming;

16. In view of the definition of land contained in the law relating to land tenures, i.e. U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, the fact that the land was not declared as Abadi under section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 as explained under section 3(14) of the said Act, in itself becomes a relevant factor for 5 WRIC No. 29115 of 2017 determining the nature of land that was subject matter of instrument. This Court in various authorities has held that when the land is purchased for agricultural purposes and declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act, 1950 has not been made and merely because the land is situated in close vicinity of the non-agricultural land, the same would not loose its character as the agricultural land for the purposes of levy of stamp duty. Reference can be made to few authorities of this Court in the case of Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad and another, reported in 2000 (3) AWC 2587; Smt. Sushila Verma vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2006 (2) AWC 1492 and Sudama vs Chief Controlling Authority and others, reported in 2013 (4) AWC 3571. ****

19. The observations/findings recorded in the orders impugned are also contrary to principles of burden of proof particularly, in a case where proceedings arise out of a fiscal statute. Once the State was proceeding to impose deficient stamp duty upon the petitioner, the entire burden lay upon the State to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner made some concealment at the time of getting the sale deed executed in his favour or that within a close proximity of dates, the user of the land in dispute was changed so as to levy additional stamp duty. Nothing to this effect has been brought on record, rather, not only the findings recorded in the orders impugned are contrary to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in the State of U.P. as well as U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, but certainly contrary to the law consistently laid down by this Court.

11. Further, the petitioner has raised specific objection that spot inspection was not made in compliance of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. Both the authorities below have failed to consider that no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act has been made in respect of the land in question at the time of execution of the sale deed.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court, the matter requires re-consideration by the 6 WRIC No. 29115 of 2017 respondent authorities. Accordingly the impugned orders passed in both the aforesaid writ petitions are hereby quashed.

13. Both the aforesaid writ petitions are allowed.

14. The matter is remanded to the Collector, Agra, respondent no. 3 who, after considering the evidence filed by the petitioner as well as after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, shall decide the matter, afresh, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

15. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh order passed by the Collector. September 23, 2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- (Piyush Agrawal,J.) RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad