High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71512 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22265 of 2024 Petitioner :- Deepak Seth Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijai Shanker Tripathi,Vinod Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 20.3.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra in Case No. 00445 of 2020 and the order dated 15.5.2024 passed by Member Board of Revenue, Prayagraj in Stamp Appeal No. 1374 of 2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased an agricultural land of plot nos. 873 Ka, 873 Ga, 873 Na, 874, 875 (area 0.6710 hectare) and plot no. 778/1, 778/2, 1/8 share (area 0.68525 hectare) situated at Salkhan Tehsil Sadar, Robertsganj through registered sale deed dated 13.1.2020 and paid the due stamp duty thereof according to prevalent circle rate. He submits that on the basis of ex parte spot inspection report dated 27.2.2020, the proceedings under Section 47 A of Indian Stamp Act was initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice dated 13.3.2020 was issued on the ground that the land in question was commercial property against which the petitioner has filed objection on 21.12.2020 stating therein that without giving any notice and opportunity to be present on the spot, the Additional District Magistrate has prepared an ex parte report dated 27.2.2020, however being not satisfied with the same, the impugned order dated 20.3.2021 has been passed by which deficiency of stamp together with penalty and interest has been imposed. Feeling aggrieved to the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by order dated 15.5.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the appeal, specific ground was taken that the land in question was agricultural land which is supported by due evidence, therefore, the same cannot be treated as non agricultural. He submits that no declaration under Section 143 of UP Z.A. & L.R. Act was made at the time of execution of sale deed. He submits that though the said objections were noticed but no due weightage of the same was given while passing the impugned orders. He submits that specific ground was also taken in the present writ petition, which has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the State. He submits that once the land in question is recorded as agricultural land, the nature of the land cannot be changed without there being proper declaration under Section 143 of UP Z.A. & L.R. Act. He prays for allowing the present petition. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order.
Facts
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. It is not in dispute that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the land in question was stated to be an agricultural land at the time of purchase however only on the basis of ex-parte report, the proceedings were initiated treating the land in question as commercial land. Further specific ground was taken in his objection as well as grounds of appeal, which has not been dealt with. The grounds of appeal has been brought on record where in specific ground was taken as ground no. 13 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 same has not been considered by the authorities below.
Legal Reasoning
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 (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 20.3.2021 and 15.5.2024 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.
Decision
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 :- 5.5.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad