M/s Vasundhara Plantation Pvt. Ltd v. State) under Section

1. Heard Mr. Ankit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is, inter alia, praying for the following relief:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 08.2.2024 passed by Respondent no. 2 in Stamp Appeal No. 2908/2018 (Computerized Case No. Al20181128002908) (M/s Vasundhara Plantation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State) under Section 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the orders dated 15.11.2018 and 28.8.2017 passed by respondent no. 3 in case No. 45 of 2018 u/s 151 of CPC read with O9 R 13 (M/S Vasundhara Plantation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State ) and Case No. 3195/2016 (State Vs. M/s Vasundhara Plantation Pvt. Ltd.) under Section 47 A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Annexure No. I and II to this writ petition) respectively. "

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased an agricultural land situated at village Narayan Nagar @ Rampur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Loni, Distt. Ghaziabad bearing Gata No. 160, Khasra No. 485, area 1.1865 hectare through registered sale deed dated 24.6.2016. He submits that on the basis of ex- parte spot inspection report dated 5.10.2016, a show cause notice dated 23.12.2017 was issued to the petitioner, which was never received by the petitioner, therefore, no objection was filed, however by ex parte order dated 28.8.2017, the deficiency of stamp together with penalty and interest has been imposed. He submits that for the first time, the petitioner came to know about the impugned order dated 28.8.2017, when the recovery proceeding was initiated against him and thereafter immediately filed a recall application but the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2018. He submits that the petitioner has challenged both the aforesaid orders in appeal but the same has also been dismissed without considering the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 28.8.2017. He submits that the land in question was purchased as an agricultural land but on the basis of an exparte spot inspection report, the proceedings has been initiated holding the land in question as non-agricultural.

5. 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 the respondent authority has failed to consider the aforesaid grounds taken in the memo of appeal while passing the impugned order. He prays for allowing the present writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.

8. It is not in dispute that the land in question was purchased as an agricultural land after paying due stamp duty however on the basis of spot inspection report dated 5.10.2016, the proceedings have been initiated in which the impugned orders have been passed. In the appeal, specific ground was taken by the petitioner as ground no. B that the petitioner was neither served any notice nor given any opportunity of hearing before passing the order. Further, another ground was taken 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, but the said grounds have neither been considered by the authorities below nor specifically been denied by the State in its pleadings.

9. The issue in hand 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 the property- (1) In case of land- (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."

10. 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.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court, the impugned orders dated 08.2.2024 , 15.11.2018 and 28.8.2017 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.

12. The writ petition is allowed.

13. The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner either pursuant to the impugned orders or in pursuance of the direction made by this Court, 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 :- 29.4.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Ankit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is, inter alia, praying for the following relief:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 08.2.2024 passed by Respondent no. 2 in Stamp Appeal No. 2908/2018 (Computerized Case No. Al20181128002908) (M/s Vasundhara Plantation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State) under Section 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the orders dated 15.11.2018 and 28.8.2017 passed by respondent no. 3 in case No. 45 of 2018 u/s 151 of CPC read with O9 R 13 (M/S Vasundhara Plantation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State ) and Case No. 3195/2016 (State Vs. M/s Vasundhara Plantation Pvt. Ltd.) under Section 47 A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Annexure No. I and II to this writ petition) respectively. "

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased an agricultural land situated at village Narayan Nagar @ Rampur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Loni, Distt. Ghaziabad bearing Gata No. 160, Khasra No. 485, area 1.1865 hectare through registered sale deed dated 24.6.2016. He submits that on the basis of ex- parte spot inspection report dated 5.10.2016, a show cause notice dated 23.12.2017 was issued to the petitioner, which was never received by the petitioner, therefore, no objection was filed, however by ex parte order dated 28.8.2017, the deficiency of stamp together with penalty and interest has been imposed. He submits that for the first time, the petitioner came to know about the impugned order dated 28.8.2017, when the recovery proceeding was initiated against him and thereafter immediately filed a recall application but the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2018. He submits that the petitioner has challenged both the aforesaid orders in appeal but the same has also been dismissed without considering the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 28.8.2017. He submits that the land in question was purchased as an agricultural land but on the basis of an exparte spot inspection report, the proceedings has been initiated holding the land in question as non-agricultural.

5. 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 the respondent authority has failed to consider the aforesaid grounds taken in the memo of appeal while passing the impugned order. He prays for allowing the present writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.

8. It is not in dispute that the land in question was purchased as an agricultural land after paying due stamp duty however on the basis of spot inspection report dated 5.10.2016, the proceedings have been initiated in which the impugned orders have been passed. In the appeal, specific ground was taken by the petitioner as ground no. B that the petitioner was neither served any notice nor given any opportunity of hearing before passing the order. Further, another ground was taken 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, but the said grounds have neither been considered by the authorities below nor specifically been denied by the State in its pleadings.

9. The issue in hand 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 the property- (1) In case of land- (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."

10. 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.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court, the impugned orders dated 08.2.2024 , 15.11.2018 and 28.8.2017 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.

12. The writ petition is allowed.

13. The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner either pursuant to the impugned orders or in pursuance of the direction made by this Court, 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 :- 29.4.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad