High Court · 2025

Heard Shri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.

2. Since learned counsel for the parties submit that the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. With the consent of the parties, Writ C No. 17151 of 2018 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these writ petitions. Writ C No. 17151 of 2018

4. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 15.12.2015, the petitioners purchased the land in dispute after paying requisite stamp duty. He further submits that on 22.12.2015, an ex parte inspection report was submitted 2 without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioners. On the basis of the aforesaid ex parte report, the proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioners, to which the petitioners filed objection, but without considering the objection of the petitioners, the respondent no. 3, vide impugned order dated 30.10.2017, imposed deficiency of stamp duty, together with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.03.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the land in dispute was not adjacent to the National Highway or the main road, but is situated on 9 meters by-lane. The authorities below, without considering the material on record, have wrongly treated the same to be situated adjacent to the Highway only on the alleged ground that the land adjacent to the main road is the land of the family member of the petitioners. He further submits that big chunk of land was purchased by the three different instruments and the land was divided by 4.5 feet wall having different gates altogether. The petitioners do not have any access to the main road, but they have access by a sub-lane of 9 feet wide and therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for deficiency of stamp duty are perverse. He further submits that in the impugned order, there is a reference of some Government order, which cannot aid to the respondents as under the Indian Stamp Act, no such condition has been prescribed. He further submits that the report nowhere provides that any spot inspection was conducted by the authority. He further submits that merely for the reason that the purchaser of the instrument no. 8385 is the family member of the petitioners, does not create any right of the petitioners in the said land.

6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioners are members of 3 one family. Relying on the sale deed in question, he submits that big chunk of land was purchased vide three different sale deeds. The land adjacent to the road was purchased by one Raghuveer Prasad Sharma, the adopted son of Shri Devki Nandan Sharma, who executed the sale deed on the same day for one part of the land, which is adjacent to the road. The petitioners are three in numbers. Petitioner no. 3 – Raghav Rajoriya minor son of Alok Rajoriya purchased the land, who is the grandson of Raghuveer Prasad Sharma. He further submits that the other portion also purchased by the same family members. He further submits that just to avoid legitimate stamp duty, three separate sale deeds were executed by the family members showing separate plots. Once it is not in dispute that all the petitioners are members of one family, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against them. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. The record shows that a big chunk of land was purchased by three different sale deeds mentioning therein different purchasers, but on the same day. The sale deed in question was executed in favour of the joint names, who are three in numbers (Annexure No.1), which is registered as document no. 8388. One more sale deed was executed in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner no. 3 (Annexure No. 2). The record further shows that from perusal of two sale deeds, referred to herein-above, one is purchased by the grandfather of the petitioner no. 3, namely, Raghuveer Prasad Sharma and in the sale deed in question, the petitioner no. 3 happens to be the grandson of Raghuveer Prasad. The said fact, i.e., Raghuveer Prasad Sharma happens to be the grandfather of the petitioner no. 3, is not in dispute at any stage. Once this fact is not in dispute that the property purchased by three different sale deeds belongs to the members of same family, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be said to

8. 4 be arbitrary. The petitioners tried to justify that the plots are separate by stating that the plots were divided by 4.5 feet wall having different/separate gates and the access of which are not from the main road, will be of no help to them. Once the land has been purchased on the same day, which was a big chunk of land, the proceedings cannot be said to arbitrary. In view of the facts & circumstances of the case noted above, no interference of this Court is called for in the impugned orders passed in these writ petitions. The writ petitions lack merit and the same are hereby dismissed.

10. Order Date :-10/03/2025 Amit Mishra AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Shri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.

2. Since learned counsel for the parties submit that the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. With the consent of the parties, Writ C No. 17151 of 2018 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these writ petitions. Writ C No. 17151 of 2018

4. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 15.12.2015, the petitioners purchased the land in dispute after paying requisite stamp duty. He further submits that on 22.12.2015, an ex parte inspection report was submitted 2 without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioners. On the basis of the aforesaid ex parte report, the proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioners, to which the petitioners filed objection, but without considering the objection of the petitioners, the respondent no. 3, vide impugned order dated 30.10.2017, imposed deficiency of stamp duty, together with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.03.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the land in dispute was not adjacent to the National Highway or the main road, but is situated on 9 meters by-lane. The authorities below, without considering the material on record, have wrongly treated the same to be situated adjacent to the Highway only on the alleged ground that the land adjacent to the main road is the land of the family member of the petitioners. He further submits that big chunk of land was purchased by the three different instruments and the land was divided by 4.5 feet wall having different gates altogether. The petitioners do not have any access to the main road, but they have access by a sub-lane of 9 feet wide and therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for deficiency of stamp duty are perverse. He further submits that in the impugned order, there is a reference of some Government order, which cannot aid to the respondents as under the Indian Stamp Act, no such condition has been prescribed. He further submits that the report nowhere provides that any spot inspection was conducted by the authority. He further submits that merely for the reason that the purchaser of the instrument no. 8385 is the family member of the petitioners, does not create any right of the petitioners in the said land.

6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioners are members of 3 one family. Relying on the sale deed in question, he submits that big chunk of land was purchased vide three different sale deeds. The land adjacent to the road was purchased by one Raghuveer Prasad Sharma, the adopted son of Shri Devki Nandan Sharma, who executed the sale deed on the same day for one part of the land, which is adjacent to the road. The petitioners are three in numbers. Petitioner no. 3 – Raghav Rajoriya minor son of Alok Rajoriya purchased the land, who is the grandson of Raghuveer Prasad Sharma. He further submits that the other portion also purchased by the same family members. He further submits that just to avoid legitimate stamp duty, three separate sale deeds were executed by the family members showing separate plots. Once it is not in dispute that all the petitioners are members of one family, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against them. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. The record shows that a big chunk of land was purchased by three different sale deeds mentioning therein different purchasers, but on the same day. The sale deed in question was executed in favour of the joint names, who are three in numbers (Annexure No.1), which is registered as document no. 8388. One more sale deed was executed in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner no. 3 (Annexure No. 2). The record further shows that from perusal of two sale deeds, referred to herein-above, one is purchased by the grandfather of the petitioner no. 3, namely, Raghuveer Prasad Sharma and in the sale deed in question, the petitioner no. 3 happens to be the grandson of Raghuveer Prasad. The said fact, i.e., Raghuveer Prasad Sharma happens to be the grandfather of the petitioner no. 3, is not in dispute at any stage. Once this fact is not in dispute that the property purchased by three different sale deeds belongs to the members of same family, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be said to

8. 4 be arbitrary. The petitioners tried to justify that the plots are separate by stating that the plots were divided by 4.5 feet wall having different/separate gates and the access of which are not from the main road, will be of no help to them. Once the land has been purchased on the same day, which was a big chunk of land, the proceedings cannot be said to arbitrary. In view of the facts & circumstances of the case noted above, no interference of this Court is called for in the impugned orders passed in these writ petitions. The writ petitions lack merit and the same are hereby dismissed.

10. Order Date :-10/03/2025 Amit Mishra AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad