Allowed

Smt. Sonbarsa Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2024/7884/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged deficiency orders and an appellate order under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Allahabad High Court held that reliance on ex parte spot inspection reports and proximity to Abadi areas vitiates the orders, setting aside the deficiency demands and allowance the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 20.02.2021 and 28.04.2023 under Section 47-A and Section 56 of the Act of 1899 set aside.

Smt. Sonbarsa Prajapati Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38406

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7884 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Sonbarsa Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Verma,Ashish Kumar Pandey,Dinesh Chandra Tripathi 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 20.02.2021 passed under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1899) whereby deficiency has been indicated in the instrument of transfer dated 17.06.2019 whereafter deficiency alongwith penalty and interest has been imposed. Also under challenge is the appellate order dated 28.04.2023 passed under Section 56 of the Act rejecting petitioner's appeal.

¶8

It has been submitted that proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act were initiated on the basis of spot inspection report dated 22.11.2019 which was ex parte in nature and even during course of proceedings, the impugned order indicates that the Prescribed Authority also undertook spot inspection of the property without complying with provisions of Rule 7(3)(C) of the U.P Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997.

¶9

Learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of mandatory statutory conditions. It is submitted that despite the fact that a specific ground regarding violation of Rule 7 of Rules of 1997 had been taken in the memorandum of appeal, the same although adverted to has not been dealt with and petitioner's submission regarding the same have been rejected only on the ground that the report of Prescribed Authority is corroborated by photographs. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Ganga Ram versus State of U.P. & Ors reported in 2020 (38) LCD 1991 , Smt. Prakashwati versus Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue ; (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 657 , Pushpa Sareen v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2015(33) LCD 1575 , State of U.P. and Ram Khelawan @ Bachchha v. Sate of U.P. and others reported in 2005 (98) RD 511 to buttress his

¶10

submissions.

¶11

Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties on the basis of counter affidavit has denied submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the orders impugned are well considered and reasoned orders and have been passed on the basis of spot inspection reports which clearly indicated that the property under transfer was not being used for agricultural purposes. It is submitted that the property under transfer is also in close vicinity of Abadi area.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it does transpire that proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act were initiated in terms of spot inspection report dated 22.11.2019. During the course of said proceedings, Prescribed Authority has also conducted spot inspection. However no date of such spot inspection has been indicated in the impugned order. The Prescribed Authority on the basis of his own spot inspection has recorded a finding that no agricultural activities have been conducted over the plot in question for past many years and even otherwise the plot is in close vicinity of Abadi area and on that basis, has found deficiency in stamp duty.

¶13

It is also evident that petitioner has specifically taken a plea regarding violation of Rule 7(3)(C) of the U.P Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules of 1997 which have been adverted to by the appellate authority but has been rejected only on the ground that the report is corroborated by photographs which were also taken by the Prescribed Authority.

¶14

In the case of Ganga Ram (supra) the provisions of Rule 7(3)(C) of the U.P Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997 have clearly been held to be mandatory in nature with judgment rendered in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachchha (supra) laying down the proposition that spot inspection report which is ex parte in nature cannot be the basis of order passed under Section 47-A of the Act.

¶15

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that both authorities have placed reliance on spot inspection report dated 22.11.2019 as well as ex parte spot inspection conducted by the Prescribed Authority. For this reason alone, orders impugned are clearly vitiated.

¶16

However another aspect which requires to be adjudicated upon is the fact of proximity of the plot in question with an

¶17

Abadi area.

¶18

In the case of Smt. Prakashwati (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has clearly held that close proximity of a property under transfer to that of a developed area is an irrelevant factor for determination of stamp duty and it is in fact the condition of the property under transfer as on the date of execution of the instrument of transfer which is the only material factor required to be taken into consideration. The relevant portion of judgement is as follows:

¶19

" Secondly, its being situated in an area which is close to Samrat Vikram Colony, said to be a decent locality, where people of high income group reside, does not by itself make it a part thereof. We are doubtful whether the said factum of closeness by itself would cast any reflection on the price of property in question. "

¶20

In view of discussions made herein above, it is quite evident that orders impugned dated 20.02.2021 passed under section 47-A of the Act of 1899 and Appellate order dated 28.04.2023 are clearly against proposition of law enunciated by this Court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the same being vitiated on that aspect are hereby set aside.

¶21

13.Consequences to follow.

¶22

Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶23

Order Date : - 21.5.2024 Subodh/-

¶24

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

Smt. Sonbarsa Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sonbarsa Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 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

Jugal Kishor(Now Dead) Thru. Legal Heir Suresh Kumar and Others Vs Judge Small Causes Court at District Court, Lucknow and Another

Pappu Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Dr. Sanjai Misra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Higher Education Lko. and 6 Others

Jaikar Pandey and 2 Others vs Mustaqeem Ahmad and 3 Others

Dr. Aftab Iqbal Beg vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Lko. and 4 Others

Sandeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others