Allowed

Jainul Abdeen Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and Others

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2024/1131/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging orders under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, which deemed agricultural property as non-agricultural based solely on an ex parte inspection report. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders as they violated settled legal propositions requiring proper notice and on-site inspection before final adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 27.11.2019 and 27.12.2021 are set aside.

Jainul Abdeen Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27813

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1131 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Jainul Abdeen Khan

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Tripathi,Anshul Baranwal

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶9

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 27.11.2019 passed under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 (here-inafter referred to as 'Act') whereby deficiency in stamp duty has been indicated pertaining to the instrument of transfer dated 16.04.2019. Also under challenge is the order dated 27.12.2021 whereby appeal preferred under Section 56 of the Act has been rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the sale deed had been executed on 16.04.2019 and stamp duty thereupon has been paid treating to be agricultural in nature but upon an inspection report dated 28.05.2019, proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act were initiated against petitioner whereafter impugned orders have been passed treating it to be nonagricultural on the ground that the property in question is situate adjacent to a Madarsa and behind a Petrol pump. It is submitted that the Khasra pertaining to agricultural nature of property in question has been completely ignored.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner has also submitted that subsequently upon initiation of proceeding under Section 47-A

¶12

of the Act, another inspection was effected on 25.11.2019 by the District Magistrate concerned but the same is admittedly ex parte in nature as may be evident from perusal of the report itself. He has therefore submitted that since the aforesaid ex parte report is the basis of the impugned order, the same is in violation of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha versus State of U.P. & Another, (2005) 98 RD 511 .

¶13

It has also been submitted that prior to inspection during the course of proceedings, the opposite parties were under statutory duty to issue notice to petitioner and to comply with provisions of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (here-in-after referred to as 'Rules of 1997').

¶14

Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the Khasra relied upon by petitioner was subsequently examined and was found to be forged. It is submitted that even otherwise, it does not pertain to the field in question in which the sale deed has been executed. He has also adverted to the inspection report to submit that since there is a Petrol pump and a Madarsa not only in close proximity but in the same Gata itself, there is no error in the orders impugned.

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident that impugned order has been passed on the basis of the inspection report dated 28.05.2019, which has been relied upon to come to a conclusion that the property in question is nonagricultural in nature since it is adjacent to a Madarsa and a Petrol pump. The order itself also indicates the fact that at the time of inspection, a guard deployed by petitioner was found at

¶16

the property. Neither the impugned order nor the report dated 28.05.2019 or 25.11.2019 indicate the presence of petitioner at the time of spot inspection.

¶17

The aforesaid aspect has already been considered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha (supra) in the following manner, which is quoted here-in-below:-

¶18

"23. In H.L. Sahu v. State of U.P., 1999 (90) RD 57, a Single Judge of this Court struck down Note-2 of order dated 3.8.1997 prescribling circle rate of District Kaushambi under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1997 which provided that in case agricultural land is not transferred in favour of a co-tenure holder or a person having adjoining agricultural plot then the same shall be valued on the basis of per Sq. Meter in case area of the land sold is less than 1500 Sq. Meter. It has been found in several cases like the present one that the entire basis of determination of market value for the purpose of stamp duty is ex-parte report of Tehsildar or other officer. Ex-parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under section 47-A of Stamp Act. However, for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report After initiation of the case inspection ils to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule-7(3) (c) of the Rules of 1997. Moreover, in the inspection report distance of the property from other residential or commercial properties and road must be shown and wherever possible sketch map must also be annexed alongwith the report so that correct valuation may be ascertained with reasonable certainty"

¶19

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that it has been held that ex parte inspection report may be relevant for initiation of proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act but no reliance can be placed upon any such ex parte report after initiation of the case. It has further more been held that proceedings are required to be conducted in terms of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules of 1997.

¶20

It is thus quite evident that the impugned order has been

¶21

passed on the basis of an ex parte report during conduct of proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act. The finding recorded by the authority concerned of the property in question being in close proximity to a Petrol pump and a Madarsa are also based solely on the ex parte inspection report.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid fact that proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act could not have been proceeded with and final adjudication could not have been based solely on an ex parte inspection report, the impugned orders dated 27.11.2019 & 27.12.2021 being against settled propositions of law are hereby set aside.

¶23

Consequences to follow.

¶24

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed .

¶25

Parties to bear their own costs.

¶26

Order Date :- 4.4.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jainul Abdeen Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jainul Abdeen Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Jain and Ors. Vs Smt. Raj Kumari Shukla and Ors.

Mathura Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. through Its Secy.Revenue Dept.Lucknow and Ors.

Sudheer Kumar Dixit S/O Ambika Prasad Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Revenue and Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Addl.Commissioner Lucknow and Others

Devendra Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and 4 Others