High Court · 2025

1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.12.2007 passed by respondent no.2 in Revision No.11 of 2003 and the order dated 12.06.2003 passed by respondent no.3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 30.10.1999, the petitioner purchased the land in question after paying the requisite stamp duty thereof. Thereafter, on the basis of an ex-parte report, proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated and as a consequent thereto, a notice was issued to the petitioner to which a detailed reply/objection was filed. Thereafter, a report was also submitted by Naib Tehsildar concerned after making spot inspection on 08.04.2003 in which it was found that though the boundaries of the three agricultural plots are different, but a single sale deed has been executed. Not being satisfied with the objection/reply of the petitioner, the respondent no.3 passed the order dated 12.06.2023 against the petitioner, whereby holding the deficiency of stamp duty as well as imposing the penalty of equal amount along with interest. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred revision, which has also been rejected without considering the material available on record. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. She further submits that in the report itself, it was found that the construction was two years old. Once the report itself indicates that the construction was two years old, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner such as the land in question was purchased on 30.10.1999, which is the relevant date for determination of the deficiency of stamp duty, if any. She further submits that the land in question is of Plot No.67 and the construction of house was on a different plot, which is not the subject matter of the present writ petition.

5. She further submits that no order/proceedings under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated, declaring the land in question as an abadi land. In absence of such proceedings, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. She further submits that a specific pleading has been made before this Court in para nos 10 & 11, which has not specifically been denied..

6. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court passed in the cases of Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ-C No. 19644 of 2016) and Smt. Kamini Singh Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Revenue, Lucknow and others (Misc. Single No.16882 of 2017) as well upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Ram Khelawan alias Bachcha Vs. State of U.P. and Prashant Shukla, 2005 0 Supreme (All) 2571.

7. In support of her submission with regard to construction of boundary wall securing the land in question, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Briesh Chandra Mishra Vs. State Of Up And 3 Others (WRIT - C No. - 8248 of 2024) wherein the issue with regard to the construction of boundary wall securing the land has been decided in favour of the petitioner therein.

8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.

9. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.

10. It is not in dispute that the land was purchased by declaring to be an agricultural land. Thereafter, on the basis of an ex-parte report dated 08.04.2003, the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated. The report itself shows that the construction of the house was two years old. Once the report indicates that the construction made, was two years old, it cannot be used against the petitioner.

11. Further, no evidence has been brought on record holding that the land in question has been declared as an abadi land under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

12. The issue in hand with respect to declaration of the land in question as an abadi land under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, is no longer res-integra as this Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), has decided the similar issue in favour of the petitioner therein and against the Revenue. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is quoted as follows: "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."

13. Further, no adverse material or case law has been brought on record in favour of the Revenue.

14. The issue with regard to the construction of boundary wall securing the land in question is also no longer res-integra as this Court in the case of Briesh Chandra Mishra (supra), has decided the issue of construction of boundary wall securing the land in favour of the petitioner therein and against the Revenue.

15. Further, merely on the ground that the land in question is situated near an abadi land, it cannot be said to be a non-agricultural land.

16. 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.

17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

18. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be refunded to him along interest @ 4% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment is made, within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Pravesh Mishra PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.12.2007 passed by respondent no.2 in Revision No.11 of 2003 and the order dated 12.06.2003 passed by respondent no.3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 30.10.1999, the petitioner purchased the land in question after paying the requisite stamp duty thereof. Thereafter, on the basis of an ex-parte report, proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated and as a consequent thereto, a notice was issued to the petitioner to which a detailed reply/objection was filed. Thereafter, a report was also submitted by Naib Tehsildar concerned after making spot inspection on 08.04.2003 in which it was found that though the boundaries of the three agricultural plots are different, but a single sale deed has been executed. Not being satisfied with the objection/reply of the petitioner, the respondent no.3 passed the order dated 12.06.2023 against the petitioner, whereby holding the deficiency of stamp duty as well as imposing the penalty of equal amount along with interest. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred revision, which has also been rejected without considering the material available on record. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. She further submits that in the report itself, it was found that the construction was two years old. Once the report itself indicates that the construction was two years old, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner such as the land in question was purchased on 30.10.1999, which is the relevant date for determination of the deficiency of stamp duty, if any. She further submits that the land in question is of Plot No.67 and the construction of house was on a different plot, which is not the subject matter of the present writ petition.

5. She further submits that no order/proceedings under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated, declaring the land in question as an abadi land. In absence of such proceedings, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. She further submits that a specific pleading has been made before this Court in para nos 10 & 11, which has not specifically been denied..

6. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court passed in the cases of Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ-C No. 19644 of 2016) and Smt. Kamini Singh Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Revenue, Lucknow and others (Misc. Single No.16882 of 2017) as well upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Ram Khelawan alias Bachcha Vs. State of U.P. and Prashant Shukla, 2005 0 Supreme (All) 2571.

7. In support of her submission with regard to construction of boundary wall securing the land in question, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Briesh Chandra Mishra Vs. State Of Up And 3 Others (WRIT - C No. - 8248 of 2024) wherein the issue with regard to the construction of boundary wall securing the land has been decided in favour of the petitioner therein.

8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.

9. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.

10. It is not in dispute that the land was purchased by declaring to be an agricultural land. Thereafter, on the basis of an ex-parte report dated 08.04.2003, the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated. The report itself shows that the construction of the house was two years old. Once the report indicates that the construction made, was two years old, it cannot be used against the petitioner.

11. Further, no evidence has been brought on record holding that the land in question has been declared as an abadi land under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

12. The issue in hand with respect to declaration of the land in question as an abadi land under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, is no longer res-integra as this Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), has decided the similar issue in favour of the petitioner therein and against the Revenue. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is quoted as follows: "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."

13. Further, no adverse material or case law has been brought on record in favour of the Revenue.

14. The issue with regard to the construction of boundary wall securing the land in question is also no longer res-integra as this Court in the case of Briesh Chandra Mishra (supra), has decided the issue of construction of boundary wall securing the land in favour of the petitioner therein and against the Revenue.

15. Further, merely on the ground that the land in question is situated near an abadi land, it cannot be said to be a non-agricultural land.

16. 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.

17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

18. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be refunded to him along interest @ 4% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment is made, within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Pravesh Mishra PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad