Ram Keval Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Devipatan Mandal, Gonda and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18028

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 912 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Keval Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Devipatan Mandal, Gonda And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bal Krishna Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Soni, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3.

¶6

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶7

Learned counsels appearing for both the parties state that the crux of the issue has already been summed up by this Court vide the order dated 30.01.2024.

¶8

For the sake of convenience, the order dated 30.01.2024 is reproduced below:

¶9

" 1. Heard.

¶10

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased a piece of land through registered sale-deed dated 28.11.2020. On a complaint being made on IGRS portal an inspection of the said land was carried out by the Sub-Registrar, Mahasi, who submitted an ex-parte report dated 13.01.2021 on which the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1899') were initiated against the petitioner and without there being any material on record, the competent authority vide order dated 22.03.2023, a copy of which is part of Annexure-1 to the writ petition, has required the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty along with penalty and registration charges. The appeal filed against the said order has also been

¶11

rejected vide order dated 07.12.2023, a copy of which is part of Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

¶12

3. The legal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is settled proposition of law that any order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act, 1899 on the basis of an ex-parte report submitted by the Sub-Registrar would be per se illegal inasmuch as the ex-parte report of the Sub-Registrar would be relevant for the purpose of initiation of the proceedings but subsequent thereto unless and until an inspection is conducted and there is additional material on record, no order can be passed based on the said ex-parte report.

¶13

4. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions in the matter.

¶14

5. List in the next week as fresh. "

¶15

From perusal of order dated 30.01.2024 it emerges that the legal point as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 22.03.2023, a copy of which is part of annexure 1 to the petition, has been passed by the competent authority on the basis of an ex-parte report submitted by the Sub-Registrar and no other material has been considered while passing the said order which when seen in the context of law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha vs. State of U.P. and another, 2005 SCC OnLine All 2247 would vitiate the order impugned. This aspect of matter having not been considered by the appellate authority also vitiates the order of appellate authority dated 07.12.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition.

¶16

This Court had required learned Standing Counsel to seek

¶17

instructions in the matter.

¶18

Today, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received through covering letter dated 05.02.2024 sent by the Assistant Inspector General of Stamps, District Bahraich states that after notices were issued of the proceedings under provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1899') the petitioner had filed his objections but he himself indicated that there is an error on the part of the deed writer in not disclosing the value and thus no error has occurred in the competent authority having passed the order impugned dated 22.03.2023 whereby the petitioner has been required to pay additional stamp duty alongwith penalty and charges.

¶19

The aforesaid argument though attractive on the face of record merits to be rejected outrightly. The reason is that a perusal of order impugned dated 22.03.2023 would indicate that the only material which was there before the competent authority was an ex-parte report dated 13.01.2021 submitted by the Sub Registrar, Tehsil Mahsi, District Bahraich on the basis of which proceedings under Section 47A of the Act, 1899 were initiated. Even if the petitioner did not deny the said report as emerges from the order impugned even then it was the duty of the respondents to have proceeded in accordance with U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 more particularly Rule 7 which gives entire procedure or on receipt of a reference.

¶20

However without adopting the said procedure, the competent authority simply placed reliance on an ex-parte report dated 13.01.2021 on the basis of which proceedings were initiated and which, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra) , would only be relevant for the purpose of initiation of proceedings and no reliance could

¶21

be placed on the aforesaid report for passing of any order. This aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner vide the order dated 07.12.2023.

¶22

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed .

¶23

The orders impugned dated 22.03.2023 and 07.12.2023, copies of which are part of annexure 1 to the writ petition, are quashed.

¶24

Consequences to follow.

¶25

The matter is remitted to the competent authority i.e. respondent no.2 / District Magistrate, District Bahraich to pass a fresh order after due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned in accordance with law which order would be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

Order Date :- 28.2.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶27

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Keval v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Devipatan Mandal, Gonda and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Keval v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Devipatan Mandal, Gonda and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Vaishnavi Enterprises Lko. Thru. Its Proprietor Jai Shanker Tripathi Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Tax Lucknow. U.P.

M/S Vaishnavi Enterprises,Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor Jai Shanker Tripathi Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax, Lko. U.P.

The General Secretary,Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Association,H.a.L. Lucknow Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Labour and Employment,New Delhi and 8 Others

Deepak Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Harikesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others