Man Singh Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 6 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63260

Court No. - 19

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5499 of 2024

Petitioner :- Man Singh Rawat Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko And 6 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Singh,Manjusha Kapil Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Kamlesh Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel representing all the respondents.

¶8

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged validity of an order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Stamp-I in Case No. 12644 of 2019, under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, whereby it has been held that there was deficiency in payment of stamp duty on a sale deed dated 30.03.2019 executed and registered in favour of the petitioner, to the tune of Rs. 3,91,430/-. The petitioner has been ordered to pay the aforesaid deficient court fee along with penalty of Rs. 10,570/- and interest thereon at the rate of 1.5% per month. The petitioner has also challenged validity of an order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Stamp (Lucknow) in Case No. 2004 of 2021, under Section 56(1A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 whereby the appeal filed against the aforesaid order dated 17.02.2021 has been dismissed and the order has been affirmed.

¶9

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased 0.101 hectare land which was a part of land bearing khasra no. 744 situated at Village Sarsawan, Tehsil Sarojini

¶10

Nagar, District Lucknow, through a sale deed which was registered on 30.03.2019, for a sale consideration of Rs. 14 lakh. The petitioner assessed the market value of the property to be Rs. 14,54,400/- and accordingly paid stamp duty amounting to Rs. 1,02,000/- only.

¶11

After registration of the sale deed, the Sub-Registrar inspected the property in question and submitted a report to the Assistant Commissioner Stamp-I, Lucknow along with his letter dated 18.07.2019, upon which a stamp case was registered. It is recorded in the order dated 17.02.2021 that upon issuance of notice of the case to the petitioner, the petitioner appeared through counsel and gave an application dated 04.09.2020 for conducting inspection of the property in question again in his presence but thereafter the petitioner and his counsel did not appear in the proceedings. Still, the property in question was inspected again in presence of the petitioner and in the inspection report submitted by the Sub Registrar on 08.12.2021, it was stated that no sign was found regarding any agricultural activity being carried on the land in question either in present or in near past. The land in question was not agricultural land. Deeds registered at serial no. 4027/14, 2627/15 and 6779/15 had been registered previously regarding separate portion of the same khasra no. 744, regarding all of which stamp duty was paid on residential rates.

¶12

In appeal also, the Assistant Commissioner has recorded that the appellant or his counsel were not appearing on consecutive dates and it appeared that the petitioner merely wanted to keep the proceedings pending and did not want its disposal. Therefore, the appeal was decided after hearing submissions of the learned DGC (Revenue), holding that some other portions of land in question forming a part of the same khasra have already been treated as residential lands is relevant for deciding

¶13

the nature of land. Upon inspection, the land was found not being used for agricultural purposes and it had immediate potential for being used for non-agricultural/ residential purposes. Therefore, the valuation of land treating it to be nonagricultural was proper.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appurtenant plots of land were small plots which were being used for residential purposes whereas the land purchased through the sale deed in question measures 0.101 hectare which is a large plot of land and which indicates that the land has not been purchased for residential purposes.

¶15

The area of land will not be determinative of the nature of land. When separate portion of khasra no. 744 have been sold through different deeds and on earlier sale deeds executed regarding different portions of same khasra in the year 2015 and 2017, stamp duty was paid treating the land to be residential, it will give rise to a presumption that the entire land had the immediate potential for being used for residential purpose. This presumption stands fortified by the inspection report submitted after carrying out an inspection in presence of the petitioner wherein it is recorded that the land in question was not being used for agricultural purposes and it has potential for being used for residential purposes.

¶16

Accordingly, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Stamp-I and the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Lucknow.

¶17

The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 Pradeep/-

¶19

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

Man Singh Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Man Singh Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Sadhna Singh and 2 Others Vs Commissioner Under Workman Compensation Act 1923 and Dy. Labour Commissioner, Gonda and 2 Others

Mohammad Aleem Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Sadar, Faizabad and 15 Others

Gurdas and Another vs Krishna Bihari Dwivedi and Another

Abhishek vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Zuber Farhat Khan vs U.P. Waqf Tribunal Lucknow U.P. Thru. Chairman and others