High Court · 2025

Authorities, accordingly the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

11. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

12. From the perusal of the copy of the sale deed which have been brought on record as annexure no.3, it would indicate that the petitioner has not shown any construction existing on the said plot. It is not disputed that the petitioner had purchased Plot No.493. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the site-plan which is part of sale deed and it has been indicated that the said plot is near the chak marg (kharanja) and therefore the land being situate in the segment area near the abadi for which the petitioner has paid the appropriate stamp duty as indicated by the Collector.

13. However, what is relevant to notice is the fact that an inspection was made on 22.02.2020 and a copy thereof have been brought on record as annexure no.2. The said report clearly indicates that the inspection was made on 22.02.2020 in presence of the petitioner Surya Narain. The record also indicates that at the time of inspection a second class RCC construction was present.

14. There was also a tin-shed and certain pillars which were existing including certain work done up to the foundation level was also found present. It was also indicated that a public school was also being run. However, all these facts were not disclosed in the sale deed and a deliberate attempt was made to conceal the necessary facts which had a direct implication on the existence of stamp duty which is sought to be evaded.

15. The record further indicates that certain objections were filed by the petitioner, a copy of which is on record as annexure no.7. In the entire objections dated 23.07.2021 all that has been stated by the petitioner is that he has paid the appropriate stamp duty. There is not a mention of the fact that the said inspection which was held was not in his presence or that his presence have incorrectly been shown. In his objection, it also does not indicate that the alleged construction upon which the stamp duty is said to have been evaded did not belong to the petitioner or that it was not found on his Plot No.493.

16. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the respondent no.3 taking note of the objections filed by the petitioner, initiated proceedings under section 47-A and the same came to be decided by means of order dated 04.10.2021 whereby a deficiency of Rs.6,58,750/- and a shortage of Rs.1,31,810/- towards registration charges and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was adjudged against the petitioner.

17. This order came to be assailed by filing the appeal and the appellate court also found that the findings of the respondent no.3 could not be faulted and thus it afÏrmed the order.

18. In light of the aforesaid, if the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner are noticed, it would be clear that there was never any denial on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged constructions upon which stamp duty has now been charged in pursuance of the impugned order did not exist on the Plot No.493.

19. It has also not been indicated nor a ground taken by the petitioner throughout that he was not present on the date the alleged inspection dated

22.01.2020 was done. Once it has not been disputed nor denied by the petitioner that the constructions were not found on Plot No.493 and merely a feeble plea has been taken to the aforesaid extent in the present writ petition without there being any foundation to the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the two Stamp Authorities are bad. In the same vein, once it was never disputed nor denied by the petitioner that he was not present at the site of the inspection and the inspection report fairly states that it was done in presence of the petitioner.

20. At this stage, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that he was not afforded an opportunity or there is violation of Rule-7 of the U.P. Stamp Rule does not give credence to the submissions, hence they cannot be accepted.

21. In light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any error committed by the Authorities while passing the order dated

04.10.2021 or in the order dated 15.03.2022, hence for the aforesaid reason, this Court finds that the writ petition stands merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Authorities, accordingly the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

11. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

12. From the perusal of the copy of the sale deed which have been brought on record as annexure no.3, it would indicate that the petitioner has not shown any construction existing on the said plot. It is not disputed that the petitioner had purchased Plot No.493. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the site-plan which is part of sale deed and it has been indicated that the said plot is near the chak marg (kharanja) and therefore the land being situate in the segment area near the abadi for which the petitioner has paid the appropriate stamp duty as indicated by the Collector.

13. However, what is relevant to notice is the fact that an inspection was made on 22.02.2020 and a copy thereof have been brought on record as annexure no.2. The said report clearly indicates that the inspection was made on 22.02.2020 in presence of the petitioner Surya Narain. The record also indicates that at the time of inspection a second class RCC construction was present.

14. There was also a tin-shed and certain pillars which were existing including certain work done up to the foundation level was also found present. It was also indicated that a public school was also being run. However, all these facts were not disclosed in the sale deed and a deliberate attempt was made to conceal the necessary facts which had a direct implication on the existence of stamp duty which is sought to be evaded.

15. The record further indicates that certain objections were filed by the petitioner, a copy of which is on record as annexure no.7. In the entire objections dated 23.07.2021 all that has been stated by the petitioner is that he has paid the appropriate stamp duty. There is not a mention of the fact that the said inspection which was held was not in his presence or that his presence have incorrectly been shown. In his objection, it also does not indicate that the alleged construction upon which the stamp duty is said to have been evaded did not belong to the petitioner or that it was not found on his Plot No.493.

16. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the respondent no.3 taking note of the objections filed by the petitioner, initiated proceedings under section 47-A and the same came to be decided by means of order dated 04.10.2021 whereby a deficiency of Rs.6,58,750/- and a shortage of Rs.1,31,810/- towards registration charges and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was adjudged against the petitioner.

17. This order came to be assailed by filing the appeal and the appellate court also found that the findings of the respondent no.3 could not be faulted and thus it afÏrmed the order.

18. In light of the aforesaid, if the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner are noticed, it would be clear that there was never any denial on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged constructions upon which stamp duty has now been charged in pursuance of the impugned order did not exist on the Plot No.493.

19. It has also not been indicated nor a ground taken by the petitioner throughout that he was not present on the date the alleged inspection dated

22.01.2020 was done. Once it has not been disputed nor denied by the petitioner that the constructions were not found on Plot No.493 and merely a feeble plea has been taken to the aforesaid extent in the present writ petition without there being any foundation to the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the two Stamp Authorities are bad. In the same vein, once it was never disputed nor denied by the petitioner that he was not present at the site of the inspection and the inspection report fairly states that it was done in presence of the petitioner.

20. At this stage, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that he was not afforded an opportunity or there is violation of Rule-7 of the U.P. Stamp Rule does not give credence to the submissions, hence they cannot be accepted.

21. In light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any error committed by the Authorities while passing the order dated

04.10.2021 or in the order dated 15.03.2022, hence for the aforesaid reason, this Court finds that the writ petition stands merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench