High Court · 2025 on 29 Apr 2025

Judgment

1. The petitioner has instituted the instant petition challenging the order dated 30.05.20213 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent no.1 whereby the stamp appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 22.11.2012 has been affirmed.

2. In furtherance of the aforesaid orders, recovery certificate was issued against the petitioner which has also been challenged by means of an amendment which was allowed on 13.06.20213, accordingly, the recovery certificate dated 27.05.2013 is also under challenge.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased the land comprising of Gata No.1276, situate in Town Area, Maharajganj. The land in question belonged to one Smt. Maha Dai, wife of Ram Sanehi who executed a sale deed in respect of 0.546 hectares for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner on 17.06.2011.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that appropriate stamp duty of Rs.1,07,600/- was paid and the said sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar, Maharajganj on 18.06.2011 for registration. It is further alleged that the Sub Registrar, Maharajganj instead of registering the document impounded the same in violation of mandatory provisions of the Stamp Act as applicable to the State of U.P. - 2 -

5. It is also alleged that the Sub Registrar found that there was deficiency in the payment of stamp duty on the said sale deed and ordinarily, he should have returned the said document but instead in violation of the provisions of the Stamp Act, he impounded it. Even after impounding the said sale deed, he should have referred the matter to the Collector for determination of the correct market value and the Collector

thereafter putting the parties to notice should have got the land inspected and only thereafter any adjudication could have been made by the Collector.

6. It is further urged that the petitioner was not put to any proper notice nor he was made aware of any inspection. In the aforesaid circumstances, the entire proceedings initiated are contrary to law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. It is further case of the petitioner that he was not provided with an adequate opportunity to contest the proceedings; inasmuch as even though the petitioner was represented by his counsel but on account of bereavement in the family, the petitioner could not contest the proceedings effectively as his brother had died. In the aforesaid backdrop and ex parte order was passed on 22.11.2012 upholding the deficiency of Rs.9,21,890/- with penalty of Rs.4,200/-. This order of the respondent no.2 was assailed in an appeal where specific grounds were taken but the same did not find favour with the Appellate Authority who also dismissed the appeal prompting the petitioner to approach this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing - 3 - Counsel for the State respondents has refuted the aforesaid submissions and has urged that the proceedings have been conducted in terms of the provisions contained in the Indian Stamp Act as applicable in the State of U.P. The petitioner was put to notice and he did not respond and thereafter on the basis of an ex parte report, the proceedings were taken forward and it was found that the land which was purchased by the petitioner was actually abadi as recorded in the revenue records and the petitioner was attempting to get the sale deed registered by indicating that the land in question was agricultural in nature which was a clear case of suppressing of the true value. The inspection was made and it was also found that there was constructions of a house on the plot in question and it is in the aforesaid backdrop that the orders impugned have been passed which do not suffer from any error, hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. The Court has heard Shri Gopesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

10. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to notice orders passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 15.02.2023 and 24.01.2024. In furtherance of the aforesaid two orders, this Court had directed the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to produce the record which was made available.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarly raised two submissions; (i) the Stamp Authorities ought to have taken recourse to proceedings under Section 47 (1) (a) and (d), however, there are several deficiencies in the order passed by the two authorities i.e. the respondents no.1 and 2; inasmuch as they have referred to the proceedings as initiated - 4 - under Section 33, which was not the case and thus the entire procedure stands vitiated which impacts the validity of the impugned orders. It is further urged that once the sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar on 18.06.2011 and if the Sub Registrar was of the view that the appropriate stamp duty has not been paid, he should have immediately returned the document. However, in the instant case, the document was not returned but was impounded. If the document was impounded at the stage of Section 47-A(1)(a) for want of proper stamp duty then the same should have been returned and only if the document was re-presented with deficient stamp duty then the Sub Registrar should have taken recourse to Section 47-A(1)(d) and refer the said document to the Collector who would then proceed in accordance law. However, the Registrar did not return the document and rather impounded it, hence the proceedings which have been conducted are de hors the provisions of law and are liable to be set aside; (ii) the other submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that even the Collector to whom the document was referred ought to have put the petitioner to notice and only after getting the property inspected for which the petitioner again ought to have been put to notice would then determin the deficiency and that too after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties i.e. the petitioner in this case. It is urged that the Collector also did not afford adequate opportunity to the petitioner to contest as a result the entire proceedings were held behind the back of the petitioner and that too against the provisions of law, hence the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.

12. If the aforesaid two submissions of the petitioner is tested in light of the material on record including upon perusal of the original records which - 5 - were presented by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel before this Court, certain facts that do emerge are as under.

13. It is not disputed that the impugned sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar on 18.06.2011. The original sale deed which is on record produced before this Court indicates that on 18.06.2011 the sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar. However, its due registration was deferred and the said endorsement has been made in red ink on the reverse side of page no.1 of the sale deed.

14. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the document was not returned at this stage rather it was impounded, does not appear to be correct for the reason that the original record produced before the court refers to an objection memo issued under the signatures of the Sub Registrar dated 18.06.2011 indicating the deficiency in stamp duty.

15. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice that there is a conflict between the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the document at this stage was not returned whereas the stand of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that once the document was deferred for registration, the same was returned and an objection memo was also given to the petitioner. However, in stead of paying the appropriate stamp duty, the petitioner made an endorsement on the objection memo that the sale deed has been appropriately stamped and the same be registered. It is stated that this was the re-presentation of the said sale deed and since there was apparent deficiency in stamp duty, the Sub Registrar had no option but to impound the same and thereafter by his order dated - 6 -

20.06.2011 referred the matter to the Collector.

16. In this regard, upon perusal of the original record, it indicates that the copy of the objection memo has been placed on record and on the reverse side of the said document, there is an endorsement made and signed by Satyendra Pratap Singh, the petitioner herein, indicating that the correct stamp duty has been paid and the document be registered. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions that no such objection memo was given to the petitioner nor the petitioner had made any such endorsement on the reverse side of it, but the fact remains that there is no clear denial of this fact. Once the said document had been brought on record by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith his supplementary counter-affidavit dated 23.02.2023 even though rejoinder - affidavit to the same had been filed by the petitioner but there is no clear denial of this fact at the behest of the petitioner.

17. In this regard, this Court does not find that the submission of the counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct that the sale deed was not returned and impounded at the first instance rather the record reflects that the registration of the sale deed was deferred and an objection memo was issued to the petitioner but on the insistence and re-presentation of the petitioner, the document came to be impounded. Thus, to this extent the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that appropriate proceedings were not drawn and the document was not appropriately referred to the Collector does not impress this Court.

18. However, this Court further finds that upon an order in writing made by the Sub Registrar addressed to the Collector, the document was referred to the Collector and by means of further dated 04.07.1911, the Collector Raebareli registered the case bearing no.96-11-12 (State Vs. Satyendra - 7 - Pratap Singh)

19. The record indicates that several dates were fixed but the petitioner did not appear, however, at a later stage the petitioner had filed the vakalatnama through his counsel on 10/08.2011 but even thereafter on several dates, the petitioner did not appear though the stand taken by the petitioner is that because of the illness of his brother who ultimately expired, the petitioner did not get adequate opportunity to contest the proceedings.

20. What is more important to notice that even otherwise if the document was referred to the Collector in terms of Section 47-A(2) even then the Collector had to hold an enquiry and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties would determine the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the instrument and determine the proper stamp duty payable thereon. In this context, if the original record placed before the Court is noticed, it would reveal that several dates were fixed wherein nothing fruitful transpired and thereafter on 06.01.2012, the paper book of Case No.96-11-12 came to be transferred to the court of Assistant Commissioner Stamp, Raebareli.

21. From the perusal of the original record, it would indicate that several order sheets were drawn by the Assistant Commissioner Stamp but many of the order sheets have not signed and many order sheets have been prepared merely by affixing rubber stamp, which is not appreciated by this Court. What is interesting to note that it is the case of the State respondents that after due notice an inspection was done of the property in which the petitioner did not participate and on the basis of the said report, the - 8 - deficiency has been noticed. This Court finds that the Collector by means of order dated 29.08.2011 had required the Tehsildar to furnish its report after making an inspection. Another reminder for the same was sent on

05.02.2011 and the order sheets indicate that uptill 22.06.2012, 30.06.2012, and 17.07.2012, the report was not available on record as for all the three aforesaid dates, the rubber stamp order sheet indicates that the report so called for, was awaited.

22. The original records further indicates that a sketchy report is annexed with a letter sent by the Sub Registrar, Maharajganj and addressed to the Assistant Inspector General, Registration. Apart from this, there is no other report. From the perusal of the said report, it would reveal that it is undated, it does not indicate as to whether any notice was issued regarding information to the petitioner as to when i.e. date and time the Lekhpal proposed to make the inspection.

23. Significantly, the copy of the said report has been brought on record by the State alongwith its supplementary counter-affidavit dated

23.02.2023. In the order impugned passed by the respondent no.2, there is a mention regarding an ex parte report dated 20.06.2011 but this appears to be contrary to the record; inasmuch as the only report which has been brought on record, though undated, but was part of a letter dated

13.06.2012. If the alleged ex parte report is taken note of, then it would reveal that it is undated and if the same is considered in terms of the impugned order, then it is referable to 20.06.2011. However, if it is taken to be of 20.06.2011, then the order sheets which have been drawn and are signed would be incorrect as in all the order sheets uptill 20.06.2011, there is no reference to any notice being issued or placed on record. Moreover the - 9 - order passed for holding an inspection is itself dated 29.08.2011 for which a reminder has been issued on 05.11.2011 under the signatures of Smt. Amrita Soni, Collector, Raebareli. Thus, it is clear that the said report is unsubstantial and neither this discrepancy could be explained by the State Counsel. There is another reason for disconsidering the said report and that is if the said report dated 20.06.2011 was on record, then why in the order sheets dated 22.06.2012, 30.06.2012 and 17.07.2012 repeatedly dates were fixed indicating that the report was awaited.

24. Thus, the alleged decision making process of the respondent no.2 is completely faulty as neither the proper procedure was followed and there is no material worth its name to indicate that any inspection was done and that too with information to the petitioner. Thus, this Court finds that there was no inspection nor any notice of the aforesaid was given to the petitioner. In absence of any notice or inspection merely coming to a conclusion that there was deficiency, also does not reflect well.

25. This Court further finds that the aforesaid grounds were raised by the petitioner while filing the stamp appeal but even the respondent no.1 did not advert to the aforesaid issues and merely echoed the same sentiments which were expressed by the respondent no.2 which shows that the Appellate Authority also did not apply its independent mind rather blindly relied upon the order passed by the respondent no.2 and as noticed above the contents of the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 was contrary to what is reflected from the record.

26. In this view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the respondents did not take note of the aforesaid aspect and mechanically passed the impugned order and the averments in the order regarding an ex parte report - 10 - dated 20.06.2011 is belied by the material on record, hence the findings recorded in the two impugned orders appear to be completely perverse.

27. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned orders dated 22.11.2012 and 30.05.2013 are unsustainable and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The recovery in pursuance of the said order also stands quashed as a consequence. However, since the impugned orders have been set aside on account of the fact that proper proceedings were not undertaken by the Authorities, hence in case if the law permits, then the State will be entitled to draw fresh proceedings with proper notice to the petitioner.

28. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Costs are made easy.

29. The original record has been handed over to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla. Order Date : 29th of April, 2025 ank/- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench