Allowed

State of U.P. Thru Asstt. Commissioner Stamp Mirzapur v. M/S Abc State Private

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2019WRIC/335/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition, quashing an order by the Commissioner dated 27 April 2007. The Court held the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction as the disputed stamp duty exceeded the pecuniary limit and committed manifest illegality by disregarding an inspection report.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27 April 2007 quashed; matter remitted to Collector to proceed in accordance with law.

State of U.P. Thru Asstt. Commissioner Stamp… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 335 of 2008

¶3

Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru Asstt. Commissioner Stamp Mirzapur Respondent :- M/S Abc State Private Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Goswami Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar,SC

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner. Although respondent is duly represented none has appeared on its behalf even when the matter is taken up in the revised call.

¶6

The State has petitioned this Court assailing the orders passed by the Commissioner dated 27 April 2007 acting as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The issue itself arises in respect of a deed of conveyance dated 5 December 2005. The instrument was taken up for scrutiny under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899. Pursuant to an order of remand made in the course of these proceedings, the matter came to be placed before the Collector for determination yet again. The Collector in terms of his order dated 7 April 2007 held that the respondent was liable to pay additional stamp duty to the extent of Rs. 14,08,999/- together with interest at the rate of 1.5% thereon. While arriving at the finding with respect to deficient stamp duty, the Collector took into consideration the fact that the property comprised in the deed of conveyance fell within the boundaries of the Nagar Palika and the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. It was further noted that the property was situate on a main road next to a bypass and that it was surrounded by

¶7

residential properties as well as commercial establishments. He further noted that on the property in question, it was evident that no agricultural operations had been undertaken. On that basis the Collector adjudicated the potentiality of the property and proceeded to levy additional stamp duty.

¶8

The respondents assailed that order by way of a revision which was entertained and decided by the Commissioner. The Commissioner, in terms of the impugned order, has set aside the decision rendered by the Collector holding that he had proceeded to adjudge the liability to pay additional stamp duty basing his findings only on the prospective future use of the property.

¶9

Challenging the view so taken, the learned Standing Counsel firstly relied upon the Government Order dated 17 October 2002 in terms of which it was contended that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the revision since the pecuniary limit prescribed for him under that Notification was restricted upto Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is pointed out that in all cases where the adjudicated stamp liability exceeded Rs. 5 lakh such matters were liable to be decided only by a Member of the Board of Revenue. In view of the above, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Additionally, it is contended that the ultimate decision rendered by the Collector itself was based upon the inspection report of 25 June 2006 which was not assailed by the respondent and that in any view of the matter, the Commissioner does not rely upon any evidence which may have belied the contents of that inspection

¶10

report.

¶11

On both counts, the Court is of the considered view, that the submissions addressed merit acceptance. As is evident from the Government Order dated 17 October 2002, the Commissioner clearly had no jurisdiction to decide the revision since the pecuniary limit fixed therein was restricted to Rs. 5,00000/-. Admittedly, the adjudicated additional stamp duty raised against the respondent, in terms of the order rendered by the District Magistrate was Rs. 14,08,999/- In view thereof, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner, even if the appeal had been preferred before him to transmit the record thereof to the Member of the Board of Revenue.

¶12

Additionally the Court finds force in the submissions addressed that the Commissioner does not rely upon any evidence which may have established a state of affairs contrary to what was recorded in the inspection report of 25 June 2006. The Commissioner, in the considered view of this Court, has clearly committed a manifest illegality in proceeding to observe that the Collector had rendered judgment solely on the future potentiality of the land in question. As is evident from the order of the Collector dated 7 April 2007, the value of the property was adjudged taking into consideration that the plot in question fell within the limits of the Nagar Palika and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. The Collector had also taken into account the fact that the plot in question was situate on a main road adjacent to a bypass and was surrounded by residential and commercial establishments. The Collector had further taken note of the fact that the land comprised in the

¶13

conveyance deed had not been used for agricultural purposes.

¶14

Viewed in that light, it is manifest that the decision of the Collector did not merit any interference. The Court consequently finds itself unable to sustain the order passed by the Commissioner and impugned herein.

¶15

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27 April 2007 is quashed. It shall be open to the Collector to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and bearing in mind the order dated 7 April 2007.

¶16

Order Date :- 25.9.2019

¶17

LA/-

State of U.P. Thru Asstt. Commissioner Stamp Mirzapur v. M/S Abc State Private

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru Asstt. Commissioner Stamp Mirzapur v. M/S Abc State Private

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

Meenal Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. Vs Commissioner Agra Division and Others

Nagar Palika Parishad and Another Vs Adesh Kumar and Others

Ravindra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Anil Kumar Modi and Another Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-Cum-Board of Revenue

Buddha Sen Vs State of U.P. and Others

Nisar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Urban Planning and Others