Allowed

Mohd. Farooq v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2021WRIC/14021/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the Collector Stamps erred in law by relying on an earlier report rejected on objection. The court directed setting aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter for fresh determination of market value and stamp liability under Rule 7 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1997, within four months.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 22.07.2019 and 25.03.2021 are set aside; matter remitted to Collector Stamps for fresh determination within four months.

Mohd. Farooq Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14021 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Farooq Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshu Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The Collector Stamps in the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 upheld the objections to the report dated 09.03.2018 submitted by the Deputy Registrar, Patiyali after conducting site inspection. A fresh report was called for from the Tehsildar, Patiyali. The fresh report was rejected by the Collector Stamps on the footing that it was self-contradictory. Thereafter the Collector Stamps placed exclusive reliance on the earlier report dated 09.03.2018 to determine the value of the property and fixed the stamp liability of the petitioner.

¶6

The appellate authority in the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 agreed with the findings of the Collector Stamps and affirmed its order.

¶7

I see merit in the contention of Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities below misdirected themselves in law by placing reliance on the report dated 09.03.2018, after objections to the same were upheld. The faultline in the proceedings is this. There is no independent material in the record for determination of the value of the property comprised in the instrument and fixation of the stamp liability. The procedure for determination of the market

¶8

value of the property is set out in Rule 7 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of the Property) Rules, 1997. For ease of reference the provision is extracted hereunder:

¶9

"7. Procedure on receipt of a reference or when suo-motu action is proposed under Section 47-A- (1) On receipt of a reference or where action is proposed to be taken suo motu under Section 47-A, the Collector shall issue notice to parties to the instrument to show cause within thirty days of the receipt of such notice as to why the market value of the property set forth in the instrument and the duty payable thereon be not determined by him.

¶10

(2) The Collector may admit oral or documentary evidence, if any, produced by the parties to the instrument and call for and examine the original instrument to satisfy himself as to the correctness of the market value of the subject-matter of the instrument and for determining the duty payable thereon.

¶11

(3) The Collector may-

¶12

(a) call for any information or record from any public offfice, officer or authority under the Government or a local authority;

¶13

(b) Example and record the statement of any public officer or authority under the Government or the local authority; and

¶14

¶15

(4) After considering the representation of the parties, if any and mining the records and other evidence, the Collector shall determine the market value of the of the subject-matter of the instrument and the duty payable thereon.

¶16

(5) If, as a result of such inquiry, the market value is found to be fully and truly set forth and the instrument duly stamped according to such value, it shall be returned to the person who made the reference with a certificate to that effect. A copy of such certificate shall also be sent to the Registration Officer concerned.

¶17

(6) If, as a result of inquiry, the instrument is found to be under valued and not duly stamped, necessary action shall be taken in respect of it according to the relevant provision of the Act."

¶18

In this manner under Rule 7(3) the Collector has been empowered either to inspect the property himself or adopt any other mode for determination of the market value of the property as provided in the said provision.The Collector (Stamps) has failed to do so in

¶19

this case.

¶20

In the wake of preceding discussions, the orders dated 22.07.2019 and 25.03.2021 are liable to be set aside and are set aside.

¶21

The matter is remitted to the Collector Stamps for fresh consideration of the controversy consistent with the observation made in this order.

¶22

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that to establish his bona fides, the petitioner shall cooperate in the proceedings before the Collector Stamps and also undertakes not to seek any unnecessary adjournments.

¶23

The Collector Stamps shall conclude the proceedings preferable within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

The amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be subject to final determination to be made by the Collector Stamps in pursuance of this order.

¶25

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶26

It is clarified that this Court has not entered into merit

¶27

of the controversy. It is for the respondent authority to do so after independent application of mind and in accordance with law.

¶28

Order Date :- 7.9.2021 Nadeem

Mohd. Farooq v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Farooq v. State of U P and 2 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

Jag Narayan Vs Collector and 2 Others

C/M Sri Sadguru Purb Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Surmila Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Morkali Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Pushpraj Singh @ Sonu Singh Vs State of U.P.