Dinesh Kumar vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Sri Ajey Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned Additional CSC for the respondent - State.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 31.05.2003 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.57 under Section 56 (1-A) of Indian Stamp Act (Annexure -1) and order dated 26.02.2003 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-3) with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.53,476/-, which was deposited through challan No.42 dated 07.03.2003 (Annexure -16) along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner purchased plot No.50 area 0.053 hectare situated in village Sasapara, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bahraich for a consideration of Rs.8000/- from Sri Kriparam and maximum valuation for payment of stamp duty was set at Rs.15,000/- and stamp duty was paid as Rs.1220/-.

4. The Assistant Inspector General, Registration Bahraich reported that the land will be used for non agricultural purpose and valuation of stamp duty be determined by the Collector and directed Sub Registrar to refer the sale deed with inspection note for determining deficiency vide letter dated 21/23.09.1998.

5. On 19.04.1999 the Sub Registrar referred the matter to the Additional 2 WRIC No. 1002508 of 2003 Collector. On 20.05.2000 the Additional Collector called for spot inspection report from the Tehsildar, Bahraich, which was submitted by him before the Collector Bahraich. In the report it was held that there was no deficiency in the payment of stamp duty nor the instrument was deficiently valued vide order dated 10.02.2001.

6. Vide order dated 10.01.2001, the Additional Collector by his ex party order held that the instrument deficiently stamped by Rs.12,980/-, deficient registration fee Rs.2540/- and also imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- and directed recovery of Rs.25,520/- from the petitioner.

7. The petitioner preferred appeal, which was allowed by Additional commissioner - respondent No.2 vide order dated 22.07.2002 and remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for decision after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his objection on

30.10.2002 before respondent No.3 - Collector. Respondent No.3 arbitrarily fixed the amount to recover from the petitioner totalling to Rs.71,720/- (Deficiency - Rs.21480/-, Deficiency in Registration Fee - Rs.4340/-, Penalty - Rs.25700/-, Interest - Rs.19300/-).

8. The petitioner filed appeal against order dated 30.10.2002 before respondent No.2 - Commissioner. Respondent No.3 partly allowed the appeal and again remanded the matter to respondent No.2 and set aside the impugned order vide order dated 31.12.2002.

9. The Additional Collector again decided the matter against the petitioner and held the instrument deficiently stamped at Rs.52420/- and also assessed interest @ Rs.514/- per month. The petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 26.02.2003 before respondent No.2 on 24.03.2003. Respondent No.2 decided the appeal and imposed the same duty and penalty was imposed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 31.05.2003. The petitioner under protest deposited Rs.53476/- on 07.03.2003 on the threat for arresting him and send jail.

10. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the report, there is no whisper about mining that which type of mining was being operated by the petitioner, therefore, the report submitted by the Tehsildar is unreasoned and liable to be rejected. 3 WRIC No. 1002508 of 2003

11. His next submission is that the basis of deficiency in stamp duty, penalty and interest on the amount based on the report of the Tehsildar, which is not clear that which type of mining was being operated by the petitioner, therefore, his submission is that the order passed on the basis of said report is arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable in law.

12. He further submitted that the matter was remanded on two occasions to the Assistant Collector but the Assistant Collector has failed to appreciate that there is no whisper in the Tehsildar's report that land is used for commercial activities but the type of commercial activity was not disclosed, therefore, his submission is that the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not justifiable in law and are liable to be set aside.

13. He lastly submitted that the land was used for agricultural purposes and entries in this regard has also been made in the khasra and khatauni, which is part of rejoinder affidavit as Annexure RA-1 to the writ petition.

14. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC placed reliance on the report of Tehsildar dated 20.05.2000 and submitted that although the report does not disclose that which type of mining was going on but on the land there was commercial activities being done, therefore, his submission is that the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and are just and valid. He lastly submitted that revenue entries are not sufficient for determination of deficiency in stamp duty.

15. In the report submitted by the Tehsildar, there is no whisper about mining that which type of mining was being operated by the petitioner or use for the commercial purpose. In fact, the land is used for agricultural purposes and entries in this regard have also been made in khasra and khatauni, which is part of rejoinder affidavit as RA-1 to the writ petition, therefore, the finding returned on the basis of report submitted by Tehsildar is fully erroneous in nature and the order based thereon is liable to be set aside.

16. The basis of deficiency in stamp duty, penalty and interest on the amount based on the report of the Tehsildar, which is not clear that which type of mining was being operated by the petitioner, therefore, the order 4 WRIC No. 1002508 of 2003 passed on the basis of said report is arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable in law, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

17. The matter was remanded on two occasions to the Assistant Collector but the Assistant Collector has failed to appreciate that there is no whisper in the Tehsildar's report that land is used for commercial activities but the type of commercial activity was not disclosed, therefore, the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not justifiable in law and are liable to be set aside.

18. Learned Additional CSC placed reliance on the report of Tehsildar dated 20.05.2000 and submitted that although the report does not disclose that which type of mining was going on the land but there was commercial activities being done and no material nor type of commercial activity or mining was disclosed in the report. The revenue entries in this regard are sufficient proof that the land is used for agricultural purposes, therefore, the submission that revenue entries are not sufficient for determination of deficiency in stamp duty is erroneous.

19. In view of totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 31.05.2003 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.57 under Section 56 (1-A) of Indian Stamp Act (Annexure -1) and order dated 26.02.2003 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed.

20. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

21. However, Mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.53,476/-, which was deposited vide challan No.42 dated

07.03.2003 along with interest of 8% per annum. October 14, 2025 Adarsh K Singh (Irshad Ali,J.) ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Ajey Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned Additional CSC for the respondent - State.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 31.05.2003 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.57 under Section 56 (1-A) of Indian Stamp Act (Annexure -1) and order dated 26.02.2003 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-3) with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.53,476/-, which was deposited through challan No.42 dated 07.03.2003 (Annexure -16) along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner purchased plot No.50 area 0.053 hectare situated in village Sasapara, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bahraich for a consideration of Rs.8000/- from Sri Kriparam and maximum valuation for payment of stamp duty was set at Rs.15,000/- and stamp duty was paid as Rs.1220/-.

4. The Assistant Inspector General, Registration Bahraich reported that the land will be used for non agricultural purpose and valuation of stamp duty be determined by the Collector and directed Sub Registrar to refer the sale deed with inspection note for determining deficiency vide letter dated 21/23.09.1998.

5. On 19.04.1999 the Sub Registrar referred the matter to the Additional 2 WRIC No. 1002508 of 2003 Collector. On 20.05.2000 the Additional Collector called for spot inspection report from the Tehsildar, Bahraich, which was submitted by him before the Collector Bahraich. In the report it was held that there was no deficiency in the payment of stamp duty nor the instrument was deficiently valued vide order dated 10.02.2001.

6. Vide order dated 10.01.2001, the Additional Collector by his ex party order held that the instrument deficiently stamped by Rs.12,980/-, deficient registration fee Rs.2540/- and also imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- and directed recovery of Rs.25,520/- from the petitioner.

7. The petitioner preferred appeal, which was allowed by Additional commissioner - respondent No.2 vide order dated 22.07.2002 and remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for decision after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his objection on

30.10.2002 before respondent No.3 - Collector. Respondent No.3 arbitrarily fixed the amount to recover from the petitioner totalling to Rs.71,720/- (Deficiency - Rs.21480/-, Deficiency in Registration Fee - Rs.4340/-, Penalty - Rs.25700/-, Interest - Rs.19300/-).

8. The petitioner filed appeal against order dated 30.10.2002 before respondent No.2 - Commissioner. Respondent No.3 partly allowed the appeal and again remanded the matter to respondent No.2 and set aside the impugned order vide order dated 31.12.2002.

9. The Additional Collector again decided the matter against the petitioner and held the instrument deficiently stamped at Rs.52420/- and also assessed interest @ Rs.514/- per month. The petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 26.02.2003 before respondent No.2 on 24.03.2003. Respondent No.2 decided the appeal and imposed the same duty and penalty was imposed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 31.05.2003. The petitioner under protest deposited Rs.53476/- on 07.03.2003 on the threat for arresting him and send jail.

10. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the report, there is no whisper about mining that which type of mining was being operated by the petitioner, therefore, the report submitted by the Tehsildar is unreasoned and liable to be rejected. 3 WRIC No. 1002508 of 2003

11. His next submission is that the basis of deficiency in stamp duty, penalty and interest on the amount based on the report of the Tehsildar, which is not clear that which type of mining was being operated by the petitioner, therefore, his submission is that the order passed on the basis of said report is arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable in law.

12. He further submitted that the matter was remanded on two occasions to the Assistant Collector but the Assistant Collector has failed to appreciate that there is no whisper in the Tehsildar's report that land is used for commercial activities but the type of commercial activity was not disclosed, therefore, his submission is that the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not justifiable in law and are liable to be set aside.

13. He lastly submitted that the land was used for agricultural purposes and entries in this regard has also been made in the khasra and khatauni, which is part of rejoinder affidavit as Annexure RA-1 to the writ petition.

14. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC placed reliance on the report of Tehsildar dated 20.05.2000 and submitted that although the report does not disclose that which type of mining was going on but on the land there was commercial activities being done, therefore, his submission is that the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and are just and valid. He lastly submitted that revenue entries are not sufficient for determination of deficiency in stamp duty.

15. In the report submitted by the Tehsildar, there is no whisper about mining that which type of mining was being operated by the petitioner or use for the commercial purpose. In fact, the land is used for agricultural purposes and entries in this regard have also been made in khasra and khatauni, which is part of rejoinder affidavit as RA-1 to the writ petition, therefore, the finding returned on the basis of report submitted by Tehsildar is fully erroneous in nature and the order based thereon is liable to be set aside.

16. The basis of deficiency in stamp duty, penalty and interest on the amount based on the report of the Tehsildar, which is not clear that which type of mining was being operated by the petitioner, therefore, the order 4 WRIC No. 1002508 of 2003 passed on the basis of said report is arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable in law, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

17. The matter was remanded on two occasions to the Assistant Collector but the Assistant Collector has failed to appreciate that there is no whisper in the Tehsildar's report that land is used for commercial activities but the type of commercial activity was not disclosed, therefore, the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not justifiable in law and are liable to be set aside.

18. Learned Additional CSC placed reliance on the report of Tehsildar dated 20.05.2000 and submitted that although the report does not disclose that which type of mining was going on the land but there was commercial activities being done and no material nor type of commercial activity or mining was disclosed in the report. The revenue entries in this regard are sufficient proof that the land is used for agricultural purposes, therefore, the submission that revenue entries are not sufficient for determination of deficiency in stamp duty is erroneous.

19. In view of totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 31.05.2003 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.57 under Section 56 (1-A) of Indian Stamp Act (Annexure -1) and order dated 26.02.2003 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed.

20. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

21. However, Mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.53,476/-, which was deposited vide challan No.42 dated

07.03.2003 along with interest of 8% per annum. October 14, 2025 Adarsh K Singh (Irshad Ali,J.) ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench