Allowed

Usha Baranwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Sultanpur and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024/3578/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order imposing penalty and interest on stamp duty deficiency under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The order rested on an ex parte spot inspection report without notice to the petitioner, violating Rule 7(3)(C). Order quashed; fresh order permitted after compliant spot inspection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.05.2023 quashed by writ of certiorari; liberty granted to pass fresh order after compliant spot inspection; parties to bear own costs.

Usha Baranwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30963

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3578 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Usha Baranwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector Sultanpur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Verma,Ashish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 30.05.2023 passed under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act whereby deficiency in Stamp Duty pertaining to instrument of transfer dated 17.03.2021 has been noticed leading to passing of the impugned order imposing penalty and interest.

¶8

At the very outset, learned State counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition in view of availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy of filing appeal under Section 56 of the Act available with petitioner.

¶9

In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the impugned order will make it evident that the same is based on the spot inspection report dated 28.01.2022 which in itself is an ex parte report and reliance therefore placed upon judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachchha v. Sate of U.P. and others reported in 2005 (98) RD 511 as well as the mandatory Rule 7(3)(C) of the U.P Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997.

¶10

Considering aforesaid submissions, it is evident that ground has been taken of violation of judgment rendered by this Court as well as statutory provisions which have been held to be mandatory. In view of aforesaid, petition is held to be maintainable.

¶11

It is also the case of learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order itself indicates that it is based primarily on the spot inspection report dated 28.01.2022 as also upon an exemplar pertaining to the same Gata but it is submitted that spot inspection report itself indicates the property in question to be agricultural in nature while also not indicating as to whether petitioner was ever given notice of the spot inspection report or her presence at that time. Violation of Rule 7(3)(C) of the U.P

¶12

Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997 as well as judgment rendered in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra) has been submitted.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it does appear that impugned order is based on a spot inspection report. Although the date of the report has not been indicated but a perusal of the spot inspection report dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) makes it evident that it is the same report which forms the basis of impugned order. The report dated 28.01.2022 also makes it evident that petitioner was not present at the time of spot inspection. There does not appear to be any narration of any show cause notice having been issued to petitioner prior to spot inspection of property in question. Although an exemplar has been adverted to in the impugned order but since a portion of order itself is based on the spot inspection report, violation of Rule 7(3)(C) of the U.P Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997 as well as judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra) is clearly made out.

¶14

In view of aforesaid, impugned order dated 30.05.2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite party to pass fresh order but only after conducting spot inspection in consonance with the Rules of 1997 and judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra).

¶15

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶16

Order Date : - 22.4.2024 Subodh/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Usha Baranwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Sultanpur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Baranwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Sultanpur and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Din Vs State of U.P. through Collector Gonda and Others

Baba Ram Naresh Das Mahanth @ Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 9 Others

Sushil Chandra Vs Addl. Commissioner First and Others

Juggan S/O Rajjaq Vs District Judge Court NO.8 Raebareli and Ors.

Shobhita Swarnkar Alias Pooja Vs Rajesh Kumar Soni

Fayyaz Ahmad Vs Civil Judge. (J.D), Kaisarganj, Bahraich and 2 Others