Dismissed

State of U.P. through Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance and v. Smt. Sudha Tewari and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024WRIC/1005683/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders dated 20.05.2004 and 26.05.2005 passed under the Indian Stamp Act regarding the valuation of a semi-urban plot. The court held that the orders were consistent with the Rules of 1997 and a Division Bench precedent requiring Master Plan declaration for land reclassification.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 20.05.2004 and 26.05.2005 were affirmed; petition dismissed with parties to bear own costs.

State of U.P. through Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83098

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1005683 of 2007

¶4

Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Through Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance And Respondent :- Smt. Sudha Tewari And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Om Singh,Karuna Shanker Rastogi

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned State counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 & 3 and Mr. K. S. Rastogi, learned counsel for opposite party no.1.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 20.05.2004 passed under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act rejecting complaint made against the sale-deed executed in favour of opposite party no.1 dated 09.09.1999. Also under challenge is the order dated 26.05.2005 passed under Section 56 of the Act.

¶9

Learned State counsel has submitted that the orders impugned have completely ignored the fact that the plot in question is situate in a semi urban area coming within purview of Nagar Palika Parishad. It is submitted that the spot inspection report has also not been considered in its proper prospective to the effect that plot in question was not agricultural in nature. The development pertaining to surrounding areas have also not been taken into account.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 has refuted submissions advanced by learned State counsel with the submission that order passed under Section 47-A is completely in consonance with rates prescribed for properties situate in semi urban area such as the present plot which was admittedly situate within municipal limits. It is submitted that the ground taken as ground C in memorandum of appeal clearly indicates the rate at which the property was required to be valued and has thereafter drawn attention to the appellate order to submit that in fact stamp duty has been paid at the same rates.

¶11

He has also adverted to U. P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules of 1997.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident from the order passed under Section 47-A that market value of the plot in question has been determined keeping in

¶13

view the fact that the plot is situate within Nagar Palika boundary. Valuation has also been indicated which coincides with valuation sought by the State in ground C of memorandum of appeal.

¶14

The same reasoning and analogy has been followed by appellate authority as well.

¶15

It is pertinent to notice that the U. P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules of 1997 clearly defines semi urban areas in Rule 2(h) with the facts required to be set forth in an instrument being indicated in Rule 3. Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules indicate fixation of minimum rate for valuation of land etc. and particularly indicate location of plot with reference to its situation in urban area, semi urban area or country-side.

¶16

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner and as evidenced from the orders impugned that valuation of plot has actually been done in terms of Rule 4 of Rules of 1997.

¶17

The aspect that an agricultural land situate in semi urban area cannot be treated as commercial or residential unless the areas declared so in the master-plan prepared by State Government has been considered in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kishore Chandra Agarwal versus State of U. P. & Ors. , reported in 2008 (104) Revenue Decision 235 in the following manner:

¶18

"A Division Bench in Kishore Chandra Agarwal Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2008 (104) Revenue Decision 235, in the facts of that case, the land was recorded as bhoomidhari or agricultural land and stamp duty was being demanded treating the land commercial land to be in semi-urban area. The Court in para 23 and 25 made following observation:-

¶19

"23. The rate list dated 16.06.2004 also provides that the valuation of the agricultural land situate on the main road for the purpose of stamp duty and registration from Chinhat circle up to the border of Lucknow district has been fixed at the rate of Rs.24,00,000/- per hectare and the petitioner has paid the stamp duty at the rate of Rs.24,00,000/- per hectare. The agricultural land situate on the roadside of a highway in semi-urban area or countryside area cannot be treated as commercial or residential unless that area is declared as commercial or residential in the Master Plan prepared by the State Government. Admittedly, Khasra No.448 is recorded, as agricultural land and it cannot be treated to be a residential plot or commercial plot until there is a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act.

¶20

25. Every wide power, the exercise of which has far reaching repercussion, has inherent limitation on it. It should be exercised to effectuate the purpose of the Act. In legislations enacted for general benefit and common good the responsibility is far graver. It demands purposeful approach. The

¶21

exercise of discretion should be objective. Test of reasonableness is more strict. The public functionaries should be duty conscious rather than power charged. Its actions and decisions, which touch the common man, have to be tested on the touchstone of fairness and justice. An arbitrary action is ultra virus."

¶22

The said judgment has thereafter also been followed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ C No.14690 of 2022, Chaman versus Commissioner Agra Division and Ors.

¶23

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned orders has been passed in consonance with determination of market value of the plot in question in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules 1997 as in fact has been admitted in ground C of memorandum of appeal filed by State Government.

¶24

Therefore there does not appear to be any error in orders impugned.

¶25

The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶26

Order Date : - 11.12.2024 Subodh/-

¶27

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

State of U.P. through Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance and v. Smt. Sudha Tewari and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. through Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance and v. Smt. Sudha Tewari and 2 Ors.

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

Shyam Pathak S/O Late Durga Shanker Pathak Obj. Filed Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary Tax and Registration

Nisar Ahmad and Another Objection Filed Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secy.Tax and Others

Mamta Girls Degree College Thru. Its Manager Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Higher Edu. Govt. Lko and 3 Others

Shiv Autar Sharma and 10 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Rambabu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

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