The issue is not res integra. This Court in Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Others

Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Singhal And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Sec. Rev. Stamp Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava Iii, Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava III for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the orders dated 9.9.2010 passed by Commissioner Moradabad Division, Moradabad and the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the Collector, Rampur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 8.5.2009, the petitioner has purchased agricultural land of plot no. 12/1 situated at village Maddaiya Shadi, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Rampur after paying due stamp duty as per the prevalent circle rate. Thereafter the Sub Divisional Magistrate submitted a report on the basis of which, Case No. 10/2009-10, under Section 33/47 of the Indian Stamp Act was registered against the petitioner, in pursuance thereof, a notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted detailed reply claiming that the land in question was agricultural land on the date of purchase and thereafter the same was also used as such, therefore, the land in question cannot be treated as non-agricultural land, however being not satisfied with the same, the impugned order dated 19.1.2010 has been passed by which the deficiency of stamp duty, together with penalty and interest has been imposed treating the land to be non-agricultural land. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 9.9.2010. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the land in question was an agricultural land and the farming was being done over the land in question. He further submits that no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been made declaring the land in dispute as non-agricultural land. He further submits that both the authorities below have failed to consider the objection filed by the petitioner and the grounds taken in the memo of appeal while passing the impugned orders. He further submits that under the Right to Information Act, an information was sought from the Rampur Development Authority in respect of the nature of the land in question, in which it was stated that the land in question is an agricultural land. He submits that the specific ground was also taken in paragraph no. 13 of the writ petition, which has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the State. He further submits that the petitioner has also brought on record the khatauni of the land in question showing that the land in question was used for the purpose of agriculture but the same was not considered by the authorities below while passing the impugned orders. He prays for allowing the writ petition. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. He further submits that the petitioner has not disclosed the true and correct facts in the sale deed, therefore, proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. It is not in dispute that at the time of execution of sale deed, the land in question was an agricultural land. In support of the same, the petitioner has filed khatauni of the land in question showing that the land in question was agricultural land. 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 before the appellate Court, but the same has not been considered. Since inception of the case before the Collector, the petitioner has raised the said issue as ground no. 17 (page 88 of this writ petition), which reads as under: "17. यह ककी ्ቚश्नगत भभूममि ससंबसंध मिम धधारधा -143 उ. ्ቚ. जमिम. मविनधाश एविसं भभू ससुधधार अधध. कके असंतगरत उदሾኘषणधा नहीሻ हहई हहै। मिमौकके पर आज भम कक मष कधायर हሾኘ रहधा हहै। इस कधारण धधारधा -143 उ. ्ቚ. जमिम. मविनधाश एविसं भभू ससुधधार अधध. कके असंतगरत उदሾኘषणधा ससंभवि भम नहीሻ हहै। ऐसम ससतधथि मिम जब तक मकसम भभूममि कሾኘ धधारधा -143 कके असंतगरत आकक षक घሾኘमषत न कर मदियधा जधायके तब तक भभूममि आविधासमय यधा व्यधाविसधामयक नहीሻ मिधानम जधा सकतम। " The issue is not res integra. 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 (1) In case of land- property- (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 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. 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. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 9.9.2010 and 19.1.2010 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Singhal And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Sec. Rev. Stamp Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava Iii, Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava III for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the orders dated 9.9.2010 passed by Commissioner Moradabad Division, Moradabad and the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the Collector, Rampur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 8.5.2009, the petitioner has purchased agricultural land of plot no. 12/1 situated at village Maddaiya Shadi, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Rampur after paying due stamp duty as per the prevalent circle rate. Thereafter the Sub Divisional Magistrate submitted a report on the basis of which, Case No. 10/2009-10, under Section 33/47 of the Indian Stamp Act was registered against the petitioner, in pursuance thereof, a notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted detailed reply claiming that the land in question was agricultural land on the date of purchase and thereafter the same was also used as such, therefore, the land in question cannot be treated as non-agricultural land, however being not satisfied with the same, the impugned order dated 19.1.2010 has been passed by which the deficiency of stamp duty, together with penalty and interest has been imposed treating the land to be non-agricultural land. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 9.9.2010. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the land in question was an agricultural land and the farming was being done over the land in question. He further submits that no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been made declaring the land in dispute as non-agricultural land. He further submits that both the authorities below have failed to consider the objection filed by the petitioner and the grounds taken in the memo of appeal while passing the impugned orders. He further submits that under the Right to Information Act, an information was sought from the Rampur Development Authority in respect of the nature of the land in question, in which it was stated that the land in question is an agricultural land. He submits that the specific ground was also taken in paragraph no. 13 of the writ petition, which has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the State. He further submits that the petitioner has also brought on record the khatauni of the land in question showing that the land in question was used for the purpose of agriculture but the same was not considered by the authorities below while passing the impugned orders. He prays for allowing the writ petition. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. He further submits that the petitioner has not disclosed the true and correct facts in the sale deed, therefore, proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. It is not in dispute that at the time of execution of sale deed, the land in question was an agricultural land. In support of the same, the petitioner has filed khatauni of the land in question showing that the land in question was agricultural land. 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 before the appellate Court, but the same has not been considered. Since inception of the case before the Collector, the petitioner has raised the said issue as ground no. 17 (page 88 of this writ petition), which reads as under: "17. यह ककी ्ቚश्नगत भभूममि ससंबसंध मिम धधारधा -143 उ. ्ቚ. जमिम. मविनधाश एविसं भभू ससुधधार अधध. कके असंतगरत उदሾኘषणधा नहीሻ हहई हहै। मिमौकके पर आज भम कक मष कधायर हሾኘ रहधा हहै। इस कधारण धधारधा -143 उ. ्ቚ. जमिम. मविनधाश एविसं भभू ससुधधार अधध. कके असंतगरत उदሾኘषणधा ससंभवि भम नहीሻ हहै। ऐसम ससतधथि मिम जब तक मकसम भभूममि कሾኘ धधारधा -143 कके असंतगरत आकक षक घሾኘमषत न कर मदियधा जधायके तब तक भभूममि आविधासमय यधा व्यधाविसधामयक नहीሻ मिधानम जधा सकतम। " The issue is not res integra. 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 (1) In case of land- property- (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 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. 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. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 9.9.2010 and 19.1.2010 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad