Allowed

Mohammad Khaliq Revenue v. State of U.P.through Secy.Revenue and Finance Lko.and 3 O

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024WRIC/1001266/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging orders passed under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, for stamp duty deficiency. The court held that imparting reliance solely on an ex-parte inspection report violates Rule 7(3)(C) of the U.P. Stamp Valuation Rules, 1997, which mandates a physical inspection after due notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned appellate and demand orders were quashed, deposited money refunded, and matter remanded for proper inspection with notice.

Mohammad Khaliq Revenue Vs State of U.P.through… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46285

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1001266 of 2008

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohammad Khaliq Revenue Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy.Revenue And Finance Lko.And 3 O Counsel for Petitioner :- Tripathi B.G.Balak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned appellate order dated 25.10.2007 passed by Respondent No.2 in Appeal No.31 filed under Section 56-1(A); impugned order 26.05.2006 passed by Respondent No.3 in Stamp Case No.114/2005-06 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1899'); the impugned order dated 14.08.2006 by which the recall application preferred by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 26.05.2006 was rejected and for quashing of the impugned demand notice dated 22.01.2008 passed by Respondent No.4 in pursuance of appellate order dated 25.10.2007.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had purchased an agricultural land by a registered sale deed dated 25.04.2005 after paying the stamp duty for the same.

¶9

It is further submitted that an ex-parte inspection report submitted by the Assistant Inspector General Stamp, Balrampur and erroneously valued the land of the petitioner treating it as a residential and determined the rate which caused deficiency of the stamp duty, in pursuance thereof the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 was initiated against the petitioner.

¶10

It is further submitted that the impugned order 26.05.2006 passed by Respondent No.3 under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 by placing reliance upon the alleged inspection report submitted by the Assistant Inspect General, Stamp, Balrampur.

¶11

It is further submitted that the Respondent No.3 i.e. Collector Stamp / Up Zila Adhikari, Balrampur without making any

¶12

inspection as required under Rule 7(3)(C) of the U.P. Stamp Valuation of Property Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1997), which requires that prior to the inspection of the property a due notice to the parties to the instrument may be served, whereas in the present case, neither the Assistant Inspector General, Stamp, Balrampur issued any notice prior to the alleged inspection nor the Respondent No. 3 had ever conducted any inspection of the property and mainly on the basis of the ex-parte alleged inspection report submitted by the Assistant Inspector General, Stamp has decided the matter against the petitioner for paying the deficiency of stamp duty alongwith penalty. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Rule 56(1-A) of the Act, 1899 but the appellate authority failed to appreciate that the Respondent No.3 prior to passing of the impugned order had not conducted any inspection as required under Rule 7(3)(C) of the Rules, 1997.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no notice is required at the time of spot inspection made by the Assistant Inspector General, Stamp, Balrampur. The said requirement of compliance of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, 1997 is in the case where the Collector has passed an order for inspection of the property/ land.

¶14

The said submission made by learned Standing Counsel is not accepted for the reason that any ex-parte inspection made by the authority prior to reference to the Collector cannot be relied upon by the Collector while adjudicating the matter under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899. The Collector after receiving the reference has to make an inspection as per Rule 7(3)(C) of the Rules, 1997, which had admittedly not been done by the Collector, prior to passing of the impugned order under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899. He decided the matter on the basis of exparte inspection report submitted by the Assistant Inspector General, Stamp, Balrampur.

¶15

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties going through the record of the case and the relevant statutory provisions and the law relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha v. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpur and Anr. [2005 (23) LCD 1681] and the judgment dated 20.04.2022 passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Saroj Verma v. State of U.P. and Ors. in Writ C No. 1004498 of 2005, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the inspection made by the Assistant Inspector General, Stamp, Balrampur was an ex-parte inspection on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the

¶16

impugned orders have been passed placing reliance upon the ex-parte inspection report submitted by the Assistant Inspector General, Stamp, Balrampur, whereas as per the judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha (supra), wherein it has been held by this Court that the ex-parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899. However, for deciding the case, no reliance can be placed upon the said report. After initiation of the stamp case, inspection is to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument, as provided under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, 1997. The said judgment has been followed by this Court in the case of Smt. Saroj Verma (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, where this Court has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Ram Gopal vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [2009 (27) LCD 1335]. The relevant paragraph no. 10 of the judgment in the case of Smt. Saroj Verma (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶17

" 10. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Gopal vs. State of U.P. and Other 2009 (27) LCD 1335 has observed, while placing reliance upon Ram Khilawan (Supra), in paragraph 13 as follows:-

¶18

"13. The Uttar Pradesh Stamp Valuation of Property Rules, 1997 particularly Rule 7 provides the procedure on receipt of a reference or when suo motu action is proposed under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The Rule 7(2) (c) provides that the Collector may inspect the property after due notice to parties to the instrument. The complete reading of the aforesaid rule clearly indicates that while deciding the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act the Collector or its authority are required to make an inspection after due notice to the parties to the instrument. The proceeding under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act shall not be decided merely placing reliance on the ex parte report of the Tehsildar or any authority for that purpose. In the present case the Tehsildar's report dated 03.05.2001 does not disclose as to whether any notice was given to the petitioner before inspection of the land in question by the Tehsildar. Rather it clearly shows that it was an ex parte report. Hence the order dated 26.07.2001 was passed in violation of Rule 7(2) (c) of the U.P. Stamp Valuation of Property Rule, 1997." "

¶19

The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the occasion has not arisen before the Respondent No.3 to make an inspection of the property as the petitioner had not appeared before him but the Respondent No.3 was expected to proceed in accordance with law and not pass the order on the basis of inspection report submitted by the Assistant Inspector General, Stamp, Balrampur.

¶20

The appellate authority had failed to consider the fact that the order under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 passed by the Respondent No.3 against the petitioner without making any

¶21

inspection as required under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, 1997. The impugned orders placing reliance upon the ex-parte inspection report submitted by the Assistant Inspector General, Stamp, Balrampur is not permissible and the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law.

¶22

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed.

¶23

The impugned appellate order dated 25.10.2007 passed by Respondent No.2 in Appeal No.31 filed under Section 56-1(A); impugned order 26.05.2006 passed by Respondent No.3 in Stamp Case No.114/2005-06 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1899'); the impugned order dated 14.08.2006 by which the recall application preferred by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 26.05.2006 was rejected and for quashing of the impugned demand notice dated 22.01.2008 passed by Respondent No.4 in pursuance of appellate order dated 25.10.2007 are hereby quashed.

¶24

If any amount has been deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the order impugned, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order to the Respondent no. 3.

¶25

The matter is remanded to the Respondent no. 3 to decide the valuation of the property in the light of the observations made above. The inspection of the property shall be made by the authority hearing the case after due notice to the petitioner.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 S. Kumar

¶27

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

Mohammad Khaliq Revenue v. State of U.P.through Secy.Revenue and Finance Lko.and 3 O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Khaliq Revenue v. State of U.P.through Secy.Revenue and Finance Lko.and 3 O

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

Chaudhary Jamadar Singh Mahila Mahavidyalaya Thru Secy. Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary/Commissioner and Ors.

Punjab National Bank Circle Office Gomti Nagar Lko.through Vs District Magistrate / Collector Lucknow and Another

Mohd. Deen Vs the State of U.P Thru Secy. Labour U.P and Ors.

Prabha vs State of Up and Another

Heeralal Verma @ Heeralal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Anil Kumar Vs Civil Judge (J.D) Sultanpur and 6 Others