High Court · 2025
Case Details
Petitioner :- Smt. Aruna Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard Shri Arun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the impugned order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 31.07.1984, the petitioner entered into a registered agreement to sell with Subramaniyam Anand Krishnan for purchase of 1664.473 square meters of land. The vendor committed breach of contract and therefore, the petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance being Case No. 371/1991. After contest, the said suit was decreed vide judgement & decree dated 11.03.2011 in favour of the petitioner with a direction to the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner within a month. When said decree was not complied with, the petitioner filed Execution Case No. 3/2011. The executing court, vide letter dated 27.08.2013, called for a report from the Registrar, Gorakhpur with regard to the amount of stamp duty payable on the sale consideration. The Sub Registrar intimated the court on 24.01.2014 about the stamp fee. Thereafter, the executing court directed the petitioner to deposit the stamp and allowed the execution case of the petitioner vide order dated 24.07.2014 and on 05.08.2014, the Sub Registrar registered the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 05.08.2014, a reference was made by the Sub Registrar to the Collector under sections 33/47-A(1) of the Stamp Act, pursuant to which notice was issued on 18.09.2014, to which the petitioner filed objection. Being dissatisfied with the objection, the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), vide impugned order dated 21.01.2015, imposed penalty amounting to Rs. 5 lacs, along with deficit of stamp duty amounting to Rs. 28,22,410/- and interest, upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.08.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has deposited the deficient stamp duty, but so far as the penalty is concerned, no reason has been assigned for levying the penalty. He further submits that the sale deed was executed on the basis of the decree passed by the court below and during the execution proceedings, the Sub Registrar submitted his report intimating the stamp duty leviable on the instrument. On the said basis, the sale deed was registered on 05.08.2014. He further submits that once the Sub Registrar himself intimated the stamp duty payable on the instrument, the proceeding itself was bad, but to buy peace of mind, the petitioner deposited the deficit stamp duty, but with regard to levy of penalty, the interest ought to have been assigned. He further submits that the authorities below are quasi-judicial authority and they ought to have assigned reason for levy of penalty, but in the case in hand, no reason has been assigned for levying penalty. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of Full Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2006 (0) Supreme (All) 2746] as well as the judgement of this Court in the case of Writ C No. 10012 of 2025 (Mohammad Parvej Shamsi and another Vs. State of UP and others) Neutral Citation No. - 2025: AHC: 49441 in which the Court has struck off the imposition of penalty in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sonia Jindal Vs. State of UP and others 2011 (5) ADJ 316 as well as the judgement of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2023 (5) AWC 4511. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned orders. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has deposited the deficiency of stamp duty to buy peace of mind. The only issue argued before this Court is with regard to levy of penalty as not justified on the ground that no independent finding or reason for levy of penalty has been recorded. This Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others (supra) has held as under: "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." In view of the law laid down by this Court as well as well as Supreme Court as referred herein above, this Court is of the view that the order of penalty without reasons becomes a "non-speaking order" and is not legally tenable. Accordingly, the part of the impugned order, in so far as imposition of penalty on the instrument in question upon the petitioner is concerned, is set aside, but in all other respects, the impugned orders shall remain intact. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the impugned order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3 stand modified to the above extent. The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Amit Mishra AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Petitioner :- Smt. Aruna Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard Shri Arun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the impugned order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 31.07.1984, the petitioner entered into a registered agreement to sell with Subramaniyam Anand Krishnan for purchase of 1664.473 square meters of land. The vendor committed breach of contract and therefore, the petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance being Case No. 371/1991. After contest, the said suit was decreed vide judgement & decree dated 11.03.2011 in favour of the petitioner with a direction to the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner within a month. When said decree was not complied with, the petitioner filed Execution Case No. 3/2011. The executing court, vide letter dated 27.08.2013, called for a report from the Registrar, Gorakhpur with regard to the amount of stamp duty payable on the sale consideration. The Sub Registrar intimated the court on 24.01.2014 about the stamp fee. Thereafter, the executing court directed the petitioner to deposit the stamp and allowed the execution case of the petitioner vide order dated 24.07.2014 and on 05.08.2014, the Sub Registrar registered the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 05.08.2014, a reference was made by the Sub Registrar to the Collector under sections 33/47-A(1) of the Stamp Act, pursuant to which notice was issued on 18.09.2014, to which the petitioner filed objection. Being dissatisfied with the objection, the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), vide impugned order dated 21.01.2015, imposed penalty amounting to Rs. 5 lacs, along with deficit of stamp duty amounting to Rs. 28,22,410/- and interest, upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.08.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has deposited the deficient stamp duty, but so far as the penalty is concerned, no reason has been assigned for levying the penalty. He further submits that the sale deed was executed on the basis of the decree passed by the court below and during the execution proceedings, the Sub Registrar submitted his report intimating the stamp duty leviable on the instrument. On the said basis, the sale deed was registered on 05.08.2014. He further submits that once the Sub Registrar himself intimated the stamp duty payable on the instrument, the proceeding itself was bad, but to buy peace of mind, the petitioner deposited the deficit stamp duty, but with regard to levy of penalty, the interest ought to have been assigned. He further submits that the authorities below are quasi-judicial authority and they ought to have assigned reason for levy of penalty, but in the case in hand, no reason has been assigned for levying penalty. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of Full Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2006 (0) Supreme (All) 2746] as well as the judgement of this Court in the case of Writ C No. 10012 of 2025 (Mohammad Parvej Shamsi and another Vs. State of UP and others) Neutral Citation No. - 2025: AHC: 49441 in which the Court has struck off the imposition of penalty in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sonia Jindal Vs. State of UP and others 2011 (5) ADJ 316 as well as the judgement of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2023 (5) AWC 4511. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned orders. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has deposited the deficiency of stamp duty to buy peace of mind. The only issue argued before this Court is with regard to levy of penalty as not justified on the ground that no independent finding or reason for levy of penalty has been recorded. This Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others (supra) has held as under: "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." In view of the law laid down by this Court as well as well as Supreme Court as referred herein above, this Court is of the view that the order of penalty without reasons becomes a "non-speaking order" and is not legally tenable. Accordingly, the part of the impugned order, in so far as imposition of penalty on the instrument in question upon the petitioner is concerned, is set aside, but in all other respects, the impugned orders shall remain intact. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the impugned order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3 stand modified to the above extent. The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Amit Mishra AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad