Rakesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Chief Controller of Revenue Authority and Anr.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56194

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14990 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Chief Controller Of Revenue Authority And Anr.

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Pandey,Abhishek Dubey,Avadhesh Mishra,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Suresh Chandra Srivastava

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as Shri Hemant Pandey, learned State Counsel and perused the record.

¶9

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 06.04.2018 passed under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; and the order dated 30.06.2016 passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1899') whereby the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 24,47,860/- including penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has purchased the Bhumidhari Plot No. 758/1 as well as plot no. 888 by means of a registered sale deed dated 14.08.2014 after paying the requisite stamp duty as per the circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate.

¶11

It is further submitted that in pursuance of some report submitted by Assistant I.G. Registration, Pratapgarh dated 16.10.2014, the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 had been initiated against the petitioner.

¶12

It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 16.02.2015 has been passed by the Collector on the basis of ex-parte report submitted by the Assistant I.G. Registration, Pratapgarh, without following the procedure as per Rules 7(3)(C) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1997), as the Collector had never issued any notice and made any spot inspection.

¶13

It is further submitted that the against the order dated 16.02.2015, a revision was preferred with a pleading that the order has not been passed in accordance with law and no inspection was made. The said submission made by the petitioner before the appellate authority had not been considered and no findings has been given on the same and passed the impugned order reiterating the order

¶14

passed by the Collector, under Section 47 A of the Act, 1899.

¶15

It is further submitted that the order under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 has been passed on the basis of the alleged inspection report filed by respondent no. 4 which could be considered for the purposes of initiating the proceedings under Section 47 A, but the order cannot be passed under Section 47 A by placing reliance on the said report, whereas the impugned order under Section 47 A has been passed merely on the basis of the alleged inspection report submitted by respondent no. 4, without making any inspection by the respondent no. 3 as per Rule 7(3)(C), Rules, 1997.

¶16

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from Assistant I.G. Registration, Pratapgarh has submitted that there is no requirement of any notice to the petitioner prior to the inspection made by the Assistant Registrar but he was unable to dispute that the provision of Rule 7(3)(C) of the Rules, 1997 was not complied with before passing of the impugned order under Section 47A of the Act, 1899.

¶17

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 impugned order under Section 47 A has been passed merely on the basis of the alleged inspection report submitted by respondent no. 4, 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:-

¶18

" 10. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Gopal vs. State of U.P. and Other 2009 (27) LCD 1335 has observed,

¶19

while placing reliance upon Ram Khilawan (Supra), in paragraph 13 as follows:-

¶20

"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."

¶21

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 is without making any 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 respondent no. 4 is without making any inspection by the respondent no. 3 as per Rule 7(3)(C), Rules, 1997, 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 revisional order dated 06.04.2018, under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; and the order dated 30.06.2016, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 passed by opposite party no. 1 i.e. Chief Controller of Revenue Authority/Member of Board of Revenue, Allahabad are hereby quashed.

¶24

It is however, open for the respondents to proceed afresh by following the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1997.

¶25

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 before respondent no. 2.

¶26

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 DiVYa

¶27

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

Rakesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Chief Controller of Revenue Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Chief Controller of Revenue Authority and Anr.

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

Similar cases

Ram Ji Gaud S/O Shiv Kumar Gaud M/S Ramji Gaud Kalin Boonkai Vs the Prescribed Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act 1948/

M/S Arihant Infra Realtors Private Limited Thru. Authorised Signatory Vs Yogesh Srivastava

Anamika Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Chief General Manager Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Sugar Industries and Cane Developemt

Sahab Deen vs A.D.J-13, Lucknow, District-Lucknow and 57 Others

Aakash Singh vs Addl. Prin. Judge IV Lko and Another

Dr. Uma Gupta vs Sri Awadesh Kumar Tiwari, Secy. Basic Education Shiksha ANUBHAG-1, Lko.