Allowed

Ram Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2019WRIC/18498/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the Revisional Authority committed a gross illegality and exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, by adjudicating land vesting and sales violation rather than restricting its enquiry to the correctness of stamp duty adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 30 January 2004 and 3 February 2003 were quashed and monies deposited by the petitioner were ordered to be refunded forthwith.

Ram Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18498 of 2004

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- N.D. Kesari,P.K.Kesari,Pradyumna Kumar

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shekhar for the respondents.

¶7

This petition emanates from proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 . Proceedings were drawn and relate to an instrument of conveyance dated 15 January 2002. Treating the land comprised in that instrument to be agricultural the petitioners proceeded to pay stamp duty accordingly. However, the respondents initiated action under Section 47-A(4) of the Act relying upon the revenue records which were drawn for subsequent years to hold that since the land was recorded therein as Abadi, it was liable to be taxed at residential rates. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 56. That revision has been dismissed with the Additional Commissioner proceeding further to hold that since the sale in part as comprised in the instrument was violative of Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 , it must be held, in terms of Section 167(2) thereof, that the land had vested in the State Government.

¶8

At the very outset, this Court finds itself unable to either appreciate or countenance the procedure adopted and view taken by the Additional Commissioner in revision. Undisputedly, the scope of the enquiry before him was with respect to the taxability of the instrument in question. Since the

¶9

proceedings relate to the provisions of the 1899 Act , the only question which fell for consideration was whether the stamp duty had been adjudged correctly or not by the Additional Collector. In the considered view of the Court, the Revisional Authority has consequently not only committed a gross illegality, it has clearly transgressed the jurisdiction which it was entitled to exercise. In proceedings under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 , it was clearly impermissible for it to record findings as he has proceeded to do in the order impugned.

¶10

Turning then to the validity of the view taken by the Additional Collector, the Court notes that the respondents do not rely upon any material to establish or prove that the land was being used for residential purposes on the date of execution of the instrument in question. Even otherwise, the question of market value of the property comprised in the instrument cannot be left solely to be determined by entries as existing in the revenue record. In view of the above, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the orders impugned.

¶11

The writ petition is accordingly allowed . The impugned orders dated 30 January 2004 and 3 February 2003, are hereby quashed. All monies deposited or collected from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders shall be refunded forthwith.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.8.2019 Arun K. Singh

¶13

(Yashwant Varma, J.)

Ram Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharam Prakash Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Others

M/S Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others Vs the Kaur Vysya Bank Ltd.

Smt. Dharikshna Devi and 5 Others Vs Lakshman and 2 Others

Sukhbir Singh and Others Vs Addl. Commissioner and Others

Abdul Zaffar Vs State of U.P. and Others