Allowed

Ramesh Chandra Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P Thru Collector Kheri and Ors.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2024WRIC/1092/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside orders imposing additional stamp duty passed solely based on a spot inspection report without complying with Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp Rules and without considering material on record, relying on Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 16.12.2016 and 11.01.2016 were set aside. The matter was remitted to the competent authority to pass a fresh order after hearing all parties.

Ramesh Chandra Verma and Ors. Vs State of U.P Thru… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21270

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1092 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Verma And Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Collector Kheri And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Kapil Dev Chaubey,Ajay Kumar Mishra,Khushboo Singh,Santosh Kumar Kanaujia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶6

Both the learned counsels state that the facts of the case have already been set forth in the order dated 26.02.2024. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 26.02.2024 is reproduced below:-

¶7

"Heard.

¶8

Under challenge are the orders dated 16.12.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2 by which the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Also under challenge is the order dated 11.01.2016, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby the petitioners have been required to pay additional stamp duty alongwith registration charges and penalty.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have purchased a piece of land thorough a registered sale dated 19.12.2013. Inspection was conducted by the District Magistrate who submitted a report dated 30.01.2014. On the basis of the said report proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 were initiated against the petitioners. Notice was not received by the petitioners. The order impugned dated 11.01.2016, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, was passed whereby the petitioners have been required to pay additional stamp duty, registration charges and penalty.

¶10

The petitioners being aggrieved filed a revision which has also been rejected vide the order dated 30.01.2014.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha vs. State of U.P. and another, 2005 SCC OnLine All 2247 to contend that a perusal of the order impugned dated 11.01.2016 would indicate that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of spot inspection report dated 30.01.2014. He contends that the said report may be relevant for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 1899 but no reliance can be placed solely on the said report by the competent authority while directing a person to pay additional stamp duty as an inspection in accordance with Rules 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 is a sine qua non for passing of an order in this regard.

¶12

However prior to proceeding further with the matter the Court requires learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to whether apart from the inspection

¶13

report dated 30.01.2014 as has been referred to in the order impugned dated 16.01.2016 there was any other material before the competent authority while passing the said order or the inspection report has been made the sole basis for passing of the said order.

¶14

Let the instructions be obtained by learned Standing Counsel as well as records be produced on the next date which is 04.03.2024 at 02:15 PM for further hearing."

¶15

From a perusal of the aforesaid order it emerges that the controversy revolves around the impugned order dated 11.01.2016 passed under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1899") whereby the competent authority solely placing reliance on the inspection report dated 30.01.2014, which had been submitted subsequent to the sale deed of the petitioner dated 19.12.2023 yet the inspection report dated 30.01.2014 has made the basis for passing of the order dated 11.01.2016.

¶16

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha Vs. State of U.P and anr reported in 2005 SCC OnLine All 2247 to contend that the aforesaid inspection report would only be relevant for the purpose of initiation of proceedings but no reliance can be placed on the said report while passing an order under the provisions of the Act, 1899.

¶17

For the purpose to ascertain as to the material before the competent authority, the Court had summoned the records.

¶18

Today, the records have been produced by Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, SubRegistrar, Sadar, Lakhimpur who has been identified by Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel.

¶19

Perusal of the records would indicate that apart from the inspection report dated 30.01.2024, there is no other material on the basis of which the order impugned dated 16.12.2016 has been passed.

¶20

At the risk of the repetition it is observed that this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha (supra) has categorically held that a spot inspection report prior to initiation of proceedings would only have relevance for the

¶21

purpose of initiation of proceedings but no reliance could be placed on the said report for passing of an order. In the instant case, apart from the aforesaid report, there is no other report or material on the basis of which the order impugned dated 16.01.2016 has been passed whereby vitiating the order impugned.

¶22

This aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the revisionary authority while rejecting the revision of the petitioner vide order dated 16.12.2016.

¶23

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 16.12.2016 and 11.01.2016, copies are which annexures 1 & 2 respectively to the writ petition are set aside.

¶24

Consequences to follow.

¶25

The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 3 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned.

¶26

The records have been returned back to Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel.

¶27

Order Date :- 11.3.2024 Pachhere/-

¶28

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

Ramesh Chandra Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P Thru Collector Kheri and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P Thru Collector Kheri and 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

Vijay Kumar Vs Sriman Civil Judge Awar Khand Room No. 24 South and Another

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration and Ors. Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P. Allahabad and Anr.

Mayawati Vs District Magistrate Shravasti and Ors.

Smt. Sneh Lata Vs Nagar Palika Parishad Tanda Thru Chairman Ambedkar Nagar Ors.

Neelam Gupta and 2 Others Vs Addl. Distt. Judge Court No. 13 Lko. and 3 Others

Sayyed Abbas Ameer Vs Uttar Pradesh Waqfs Tribunal, through its Registrar, and 3 Others