Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner Division, Chitrakootdham, District- Banda in appeal bearing Case No. 1257 of 2023; Computerized Case No.C202307000001257 as well as order dated 05.09.2023 passed by District Magistrate Chitrakootdham, District Banda in Case No. RST/507/2022, Computerized Case No.D202207110000507.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased an agricultural land by way of registered sale deed dated 28.05.2022 after paying the requisite stamp duty. Thereafter, on the basis of spot inspection report dated 19.07.2022, proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and the District Magistrate, Banda passed an order dated 20.04.2023 whereby imposing deficiency of stamp duty, penalty, deficiency in registration fee together with interest @ 1.5% per month. Being aggrieved from the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was allowed and the matter was remitted. After being remitted, the same was decided again by the District Magistrate, Banda vide order dated 05.09.2023 as same as earlier fate. Again, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda, which was also rejected. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. He further submits that the stamp case was proceeded by the authorities against the petitioner, treating the land in question as an abadi land on the basis of an report dated 08.06.2023 of the Tehsildar concerned and on the basis whereof, the deficiency of stamp duty has been held, treating the land in question is about 100 meters away to the Mahoba road as well as two kilometers away from abadi, but within circumference of about 200 meters, two or three houses were found to be constructed and therefore, it is a non-agricultural land.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.

6. Upon hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.

7. The record shows that the land in question was admittedly purchased as an agricultural land. Thereafter, the proceeding of deficiency of stamp duty were initiated against the petitioner holding to be the land in question as an abadi land, on the basis of report of Tehsildar dated 08.06.2023, which shows that the land in question about 100 meters away to the Mahoba road as well as two kilometers away from abadi, however, within two hundred meters, 2 or 3 houses are situated/constructed.

8. The Revenue authorities have failed to bring on record any cogent material showing that the land in question has been converted into an abadi land, as required under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act.

9. This Court in Writ- C No. 19644 of 2016 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) in para no. 16 & 20 has held as under:- "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 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.

20. Insofar as the imposing four times penalty is concerned, it is well settled that unless "mens rea" is established on the part of the purchaser, no penalty can be imposed, even if the provision of penalty is a creation of statute. Regarding imposition of penalty, reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Asha Kapoor vs Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad and others, reported in 2008 (72) ALR 125, where this Court has held that penalty can be imposed if there is an attempt to evade the stamp duty and penalty presupposes culpability and an intention to conceal or to play fraud with the authorities. I do not find any finding on record, whereunder any opinion has been formed by the respondent-Authorities that the petitioner defrauded the Government having mens rea at the time of getting the sale deed executed. Even the annexures to the writ petition disclosing the nature of land have not been disputed by the State in the counter affidavit. I also find that the sale deed in question conforms to the statutory requirements of disclosure of necessary particulars as per rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules of 1997. Therefore, imposition of penalty is also contrary to law of the land."

10. In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

12. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be refunded to him within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Pravesh Mishra PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner Division, Chitrakootdham, District- Banda in appeal bearing Case No. 1257 of 2023; Computerized Case No.C202307000001257 as well as order dated 05.09.2023 passed by District Magistrate Chitrakootdham, District Banda in Case No. RST/507/2022, Computerized Case No.D202207110000507.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased an agricultural land by way of registered sale deed dated 28.05.2022 after paying the requisite stamp duty. Thereafter, on the basis of spot inspection report dated 19.07.2022, proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and the District Magistrate, Banda passed an order dated 20.04.2023 whereby imposing deficiency of stamp duty, penalty, deficiency in registration fee together with interest @ 1.5% per month. Being aggrieved from the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was allowed and the matter was remitted. After being remitted, the same was decided again by the District Magistrate, Banda vide order dated 05.09.2023 as same as earlier fate. Again, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda, which was also rejected. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. He further submits that the stamp case was proceeded by the authorities against the petitioner, treating the land in question as an abadi land on the basis of an report dated 08.06.2023 of the Tehsildar concerned and on the basis whereof, the deficiency of stamp duty has been held, treating the land in question is about 100 meters away to the Mahoba road as well as two kilometers away from abadi, but within circumference of about 200 meters, two or three houses were found to be constructed and therefore, it is a non-agricultural land.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.

6. Upon hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.

7. The record shows that the land in question was admittedly purchased as an agricultural land. Thereafter, the proceeding of deficiency of stamp duty were initiated against the petitioner holding to be the land in question as an abadi land, on the basis of report of Tehsildar dated 08.06.2023, which shows that the land in question about 100 meters away to the Mahoba road as well as two kilometers away from abadi, however, within two hundred meters, 2 or 3 houses are situated/constructed.

8. The Revenue authorities have failed to bring on record any cogent material showing that the land in question has been converted into an abadi land, as required under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act.

9. This Court in Writ- C No. 19644 of 2016 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) in para no. 16 & 20 has held as under:- "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 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.

20. Insofar as the imposing four times penalty is concerned, it is well settled that unless "mens rea" is established on the part of the purchaser, no penalty can be imposed, even if the provision of penalty is a creation of statute. Regarding imposition of penalty, reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Asha Kapoor vs Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad and others, reported in 2008 (72) ALR 125, where this Court has held that penalty can be imposed if there is an attempt to evade the stamp duty and penalty presupposes culpability and an intention to conceal or to play fraud with the authorities. I do not find any finding on record, whereunder any opinion has been formed by the respondent-Authorities that the petitioner defrauded the Government having mens rea at the time of getting the sale deed executed. Even the annexures to the writ petition disclosing the nature of land have not been disputed by the State in the counter affidavit. I also find that the sale deed in question conforms to the statutory requirements of disclosure of necessary particulars as per rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules of 1997. Therefore, imposition of penalty is also contrary to law of the land."

10. In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

12. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be refunded to him within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Pravesh Mishra PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad