High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71551 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34809 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shiv Murat Yadav Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Ray Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 8.8.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 in Stamp Appeal No. 274 of 2016 and the order dated 16.9.2016 passed by respondent no. 4 in Stamp Case No. D2016142900249/16-17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 29.1.2016, the petitioner purchased agricultural land of plot no. 299/1 situated in Village Lodipur Khas, Pargana and Tehsil Zamania, Distt. Ghazipur. Thereafter, an ex parte spot inspection was made and a report was submitted on 5.2.2016 stating deficiency of stamp duty. Pursuant to the report, proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated and a notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner filed objection on 3.6.2016 along with all the documentary evidence, however being not satisfied with the same, merely on the basis of ex-parte report dated 5.2.2016, the impugned order dated 16.9.2016 has been passed by which deficiency of stamp duty, together with interest and penalty 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 8.8.2024. 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 submits that spot inspection has not been carried out as per the mandatory provisions under Rule 7 (3) (c) of UP Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997. He further submits that the petitioner has raised several objection specifically mentioning that judgement and order passed in Civil Appeal No. 148 of 1971, the land in question is vacant land and and the same cannot be used for any other purposes other than agriculture. 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
Decision
as non-agricultural land at the time of execution of the sale deed. 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 specific ground was also taken in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition, which has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the State. He prays for allowing the writ petition. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. 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 the land in question, the land in question was shown as an 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, but the same has not been considered by the authorities below. 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 order dated 8.8.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 and the order dated 16.9.2016 passed by respondent no. 4 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and 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 one month 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