Partly allowed

Smt. Dhanpata v. Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Second Devi Patan Division Gonda and Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024/228/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad examined a writ petition challenging orders rejecting an appeal against underpayment of stamp duty. The court rejected the claim that spot inspections were illegal but held the penalty computation lacked reasoning, reducing the penalty to Rs. 5,000 while upholding the duty liability.

What did the court decide?

The penalty was reduced from Rs. 88,960 to Rs. 5,000; the petitioner is directed to pay deficient stamp duty.

Smt. Dhanpata Vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration)… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45195

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 228 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Dhanpata Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Second Devi Patan Division Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Faiz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 23.12.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda thereby rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 47 A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as well as order dated 27.7.2022 passed by Collector, Gonda under Section 47 A of the Act of 1899 holding that the petitioner has paid deficient stamp duty on the sale deed with regard to the purchase of Gata No.871 area 0.1775 hectare situated at Village Sisaur Andupur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda by means of registered sale deed dated 19.12.2019 on 30.12.2019. It has been submitted that the petitioner has purchased the aforesaid plot by means of two sale deeds and the said land was being used for agricultural purposes and accordingly stamp duty was calculated on the basis of the land being agricultural which was also demonstrated in the revenue records as such. It seems that a report was obtained from Sub Registrar with regard to said land who submitted the report on 8.1.2020 stating that the said land was adjacent to the highway and there were constructions beside the said land and accordingly the said land was to be described as residential rather than agricultural and also that there were fifty trees standing on the said land which has not been disclosed in the sale deed and consequently it was stated that the petitioner has concealed relevant facts with regard to nature of the said land and the said land was under valued and, hence notices were issued to the petitioner on the basis of the report dated 8.1.2020.

¶8

The petitioner filed his response opposing the said notice wherein it was stated that the said land was an agricultural land and not a residential land and report was submitted ex-parte and could not be relied upon. It is on the insistence of the petitioner that another spot inspection was carried out on 17.3.2021 and yet another spot inspection was carried out on 30.5.2022.

¶9

Subsequent two spot inspections of the said land also disclosed that the land under consideration was residential and also that there were standing eucalyptus trees on the said land aged about 1 and 5 years whose valuation had not been disclosed by the petitioner in the sale deeds and accordingly order dated 27.7.2022 was passed by Collector, Gonda holding that the property was undervalued by Rs.3,55,840/- and additionally ten percent was liable to be paid by the petitioner as it was adjacent to a public road. A penalty for an amount of Rs.88,960/- was imposed upon him for deliberately undervaluing the said property.

¶10

4.The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order had preferred an appeal before Additional Commissioner (Administration). Apart from assailing the order on merits it was submitted that the ends of justice would be met in case the petitioner is directed to deposit the deficient stamp duty as determined by the Collector, Gonda and the penalty is waived off.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing both the orders has submitted that there is gross violation of Rule 7 (3) (C) of the Rules of 1899 and submits that even the first spot inspection report dated 8.1.2020 was ex-parte and even subsequent spot inspection reports dated 17.3.2021 and 30.5.2022 were ex-parte.

¶12

To consider the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner this Court has looked into the said reports and also the objections filed by the petitioner. From the said reports which are impugned before this Court it is abundantly clear that spot inspections were subsequently conducted under the orders of Collector when it was pointed out that the inspection report dated 8.1.2020 was ex-parte. Even though there is no mention in the reports that the spot inspection was done in presence of the petitioner but no objection to the said reports has been filed by the petitioner either before the prescribed authority or the appellate authority or before this Court. In paragraph 20 of the present writ petition the assertion made by the petitioner is only to the effect that the spot inspections report dated 8.1.2020 which was the basis of initiation of the present proceedings under Section 47 A against the petitioner is ex-parte. Subsequent spot inspection reports were called for at the request of the petitioner which shows that the petition never objected to the said reports neither any other objections has been filed nor has been considered by any of the authorities below and accordingly it cannot be said that the spot inspection was carried out in violation of Rule 7 (3) (C) and accordingly, there is no matterial to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner and the same are rejected.

¶13

With regard to other aspects of the matter pertaining to the allegations there were clear findings that the foundation was already existing and there was a boundary wall on the said land, trees and constructions are already existing; are the facts which have not been denied by the petitioner. Aforesaid facts cumulatively have been stated in both the spot inspection reports dated 17.3.2021 and 30.5.2022 and, hence, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the said reports. It is in aforesaid circumstances that this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by Collector, Gonda or appellate authority which was disputed by the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that no reason has been indicated for imposing penalty upon him nor is there any method for computation of the same.

¶15

This Court has gone through impugned order and does not find as to in what manner the penalty has been computed in the present case. The authority should have considered this aspect and given the reasons for the same and not giving reasons in this regard clearly makes the said determination with regard to penalty clearly arbitrary.

¶16

Considering the fact that this Court has already upheld the findings of the authorities below the ends of justice would be met in case the amount of penalty is reduced and the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.5000/- as penalty.

¶17

In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed and the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs.88,960/- to Rs.5000/and if any amount has already been deposited by the petitioner that shall be adjusted while depositing the stamp duty as per the directions of this Court.

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 3.7.2024

¶20

RKM.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Dhanpata v. Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Second Devi Patan Division Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dhanpata v. Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Second Devi Patan Division Gonda 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

Ved Prakash Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ankit Kumar Agarwal Vs Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits,Ayodhya Division,Ayodhya and Another

Ankit Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Food and Civil Supply , Lucknow and Others

Rakshapal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

E-City Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Rpresentative vs Moksh Innovations Inc. a Sole Propriety Concern Thru. Proprietor, Mr. Akshay Kumar Thakur

Om Prakash and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others