High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Sheela Devi Respondent :- Additional Commissioner, Stamp, Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner received a gift from Sri Ram Narayan dated 12.03.2019. The said gift deed was in respect of Plot Nos. 231, 247, 287, 256 total measuring 0.2651 hectares. The said gift deed was executed treating the land gifted as agricultural land.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land was agricultural in nature and the same is being used for agriculture. The Assistant Inspector (Registration) got the aforesaid land inspected behind the back of the petitioner without putting the petitioner to notice and found that there was a shop constructed over 140 square meters and the said land which was residential in nature, accordingly, it found that there was deficiency in the payment of stamp duty for a sum of Rs. 1,44,650/- and another deficiency towards the registration charges of Rs. 10,420/- thus a total sum of Rs. 1,55, 070/- was deficient.

5. This order was assailed on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioner and the land in question was agricultural and the report dated 09.04.2019 was ex-parte and a tabled report.

6. The Appellate Authority also did not find favour with the appeal preferred by the petitioner dismissing the same.

7. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since in terms of the U.P. Stamp Act Valuation Rules, 1977, the petitioner was not granted any opportunity nor the inspection was done in his presence, hence, there could not have been any report upon which the stamp duty could have been found and recoverable from the petitioner.

8. It is urged that it was incorrectly noticed that there was a shop situate over the land which is actually incorrect and thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that even if at all that the issue of construction of a shop over 140 square meters is ignored even then the fact remains that the predecessors/the donor had already made a sale deed executed in respect of some part of the same plots on residential basis on 12.06.2014. Once the said sale deed has been executed treating the land as residential, it was no more open for the petitioner to have stated that the remaining part of the land was agricultural.

10. It is thus urged that the order impugned does not require any interference and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and from the perusal of the material on record, the undisputed fact is that a gift deed was executed on 12.03.2019 by Ram Lakhab in favour of Shila Devi (the present petitioner).In the said gift deed, it was clearly mentioned that the land which is the subject matter of the deed was agricultural in nature.

12. Considering the facts that an inspection was made in terms whereof, it revealed that there was some construction over the property in question and it also noticed that in the year 2014, the same donor who has gifted the property to the petitioner had sold some part of the land treating it to be residential.

13. Taking note of the aforesaid, the deficiency of Rs. 1,55, 070/- has been noticed. A fact which could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that the inspection of the property said to have been made on 26.03.2019 was without notice to the petitioner and behind his back.

14. Noticing the aforesaid aspect of the matter that the alleged inspection was behind the back of the petitioner, apparently, two issues need to be considered. (i) the extent and time when the construction was made, if at all. This is a contentious question as now in the year 2025 when the Court is deciding the present petition, it cannot be ascertained that as to what was the status of the land in the sense whether any constructed existed or not as if so then to what extent in terms of area.

15. However, what is important is the fact that the part of the land which was belonging to the donor, he had already sold some part of it on 12.06.2014 treating the said land to be residential in nature.

16. This being so, the land which is part of the same plot which was the subject matter of the deed in the year 2014 cannot be treated as agricultural in the year 2019 when in the year 2014 itself it was treated as agricultural.

17. This fact also could not be disputed by the petitioner nor any material was placed either before the Appellate Authority or before this Court to indicate that the said land is being treated and recorded as agricultural and agricultural activities are being done on the said land.

18. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned dated 13.02.2020 and 11.04.2023 can be modified to the extent that apart from the amount added in the deficiency treating some constructions should be deleted, however, the difference treating the land as residential shall be upheld and a fresh demand noticing the same shall be issued to the petitioner who shall pay the same within a period of eight weeks from the date, the demand is raised upon the petitioner. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority or the concerned Authority, the same shall be taken note of and shall be adjusted from the demand so made. In case the amount so determined is not paid within the time so provided then the Authorities shall recover the same from the petitioner is accordance with law.

19. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is partly allowed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Asheesh/- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Smt. Sheela Devi Respondent :- Additional Commissioner, Stamp, Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner received a gift from Sri Ram Narayan dated 12.03.2019. The said gift deed was in respect of Plot Nos. 231, 247, 287, 256 total measuring 0.2651 hectares. The said gift deed was executed treating the land gifted as agricultural land.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land was agricultural in nature and the same is being used for agriculture. The Assistant Inspector (Registration) got the aforesaid land inspected behind the back of the petitioner without putting the petitioner to notice and found that there was a shop constructed over 140 square meters and the said land which was residential in nature, accordingly, it found that there was deficiency in the payment of stamp duty for a sum of Rs. 1,44,650/- and another deficiency towards the registration charges of Rs. 10,420/- thus a total sum of Rs. 1,55, 070/- was deficient.

5. This order was assailed on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioner and the land in question was agricultural and the report dated 09.04.2019 was ex-parte and a tabled report.

6. The Appellate Authority also did not find favour with the appeal preferred by the petitioner dismissing the same.

7. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since in terms of the U.P. Stamp Act Valuation Rules, 1977, the petitioner was not granted any opportunity nor the inspection was done in his presence, hence, there could not have been any report upon which the stamp duty could have been found and recoverable from the petitioner.

8. It is urged that it was incorrectly noticed that there was a shop situate over the land which is actually incorrect and thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that even if at all that the issue of construction of a shop over 140 square meters is ignored even then the fact remains that the predecessors/the donor had already made a sale deed executed in respect of some part of the same plots on residential basis on 12.06.2014. Once the said sale deed has been executed treating the land as residential, it was no more open for the petitioner to have stated that the remaining part of the land was agricultural.

10. It is thus urged that the order impugned does not require any interference and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and from the perusal of the material on record, the undisputed fact is that a gift deed was executed on 12.03.2019 by Ram Lakhab in favour of Shila Devi (the present petitioner).In the said gift deed, it was clearly mentioned that the land which is the subject matter of the deed was agricultural in nature.

12. Considering the facts that an inspection was made in terms whereof, it revealed that there was some construction over the property in question and it also noticed that in the year 2014, the same donor who has gifted the property to the petitioner had sold some part of the land treating it to be residential.

13. Taking note of the aforesaid, the deficiency of Rs. 1,55, 070/- has been noticed. A fact which could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that the inspection of the property said to have been made on 26.03.2019 was without notice to the petitioner and behind his back.

14. Noticing the aforesaid aspect of the matter that the alleged inspection was behind the back of the petitioner, apparently, two issues need to be considered. (i) the extent and time when the construction was made, if at all. This is a contentious question as now in the year 2025 when the Court is deciding the present petition, it cannot be ascertained that as to what was the status of the land in the sense whether any constructed existed or not as if so then to what extent in terms of area.

15. However, what is important is the fact that the part of the land which was belonging to the donor, he had already sold some part of it on 12.06.2014 treating the said land to be residential in nature.

16. This being so, the land which is part of the same plot which was the subject matter of the deed in the year 2014 cannot be treated as agricultural in the year 2019 when in the year 2014 itself it was treated as agricultural.

17. This fact also could not be disputed by the petitioner nor any material was placed either before the Appellate Authority or before this Court to indicate that the said land is being treated and recorded as agricultural and agricultural activities are being done on the said land.

18. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned dated 13.02.2020 and 11.04.2023 can be modified to the extent that apart from the amount added in the deficiency treating some constructions should be deleted, however, the difference treating the land as residential shall be upheld and a fresh demand noticing the same shall be issued to the petitioner who shall pay the same within a period of eight weeks from the date, the demand is raised upon the petitioner. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority or the concerned Authority, the same shall be taken note of and shall be adjusted from the demand so made. In case the amount so determined is not paid within the time so provided then the Authorities shall recover the same from the petitioner is accordance with law.

19. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is partly allowed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Asheesh/- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench