Ramlali Vs Addl.Commissioner Admin II Devi Patan Div.Gonda and Ors.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16045

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27144 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramlali Respondent :- Addl.Commissioner Admin Ii Devi Patan Div.Gonda And Ors.

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Faiz Ahmad Khan,Manoj Kumar Nishad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajmani Dubey, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶8

The instant petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-

¶9

"i. a writ order or direction in nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned the judgement and order dated 11.11.2021 passed by additional commissioner (Admin) devi patan division, Gonda in case no.00746 of 2019, computer case No.C201908000000746, Ramlali vs. State of U.P. and order dated 20.06.2019 passed by opposite party no.3/Collector, Sharawasti in case no.00146/2019 computer case no.D201908620000146, State Vs. Ramlali contained as Annexure No.1 and 2, respectively to this writ petition.

¶10

ii. To issue a writ order or direction commanding opposite parties not to implementation of the impugned order's dated 20.06.2019 and 11.11.2021."

¶11

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased a plot of land through a registered sale deed dated 23.02.2018. The stamp duty was paid at agricultural rates. A spot inspection was conducted by Sub-Registrar, who submitted his report dated 01.02.2019, a copy of which is Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. On the basis of the said report, proceedings under the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 were initiated against the petitioner. Notices were issued. The petitioner had put in appearance and filed her objections, a copy of which is Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. By filing objections, the petitioner specifically prayed for a spot inspection to be conducted in her presence.

¶12

The competent authority vide order dated 20.06.2019, a copy of which is Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for a fresh inspection. Thereafter, only placing reliance on the spot inspection report submitted by SubRegistrar dated 01.02.2019 he has found that the petitioner has undervalued the sale deed and has thus required the petitioner to

¶13

pay additional stamp duty, registration charges and also imposed penalty on the petitioner vide order dated 20.06.2019, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

¶14

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which has been rejected vide order dated 11.11.2021, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

¶15

Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶16

The legal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the order impugned dated 20.06.2019 would indicate that the only material before the competent authority was an ex-parte inspection report dated 01.02.2019 that has been submitted by the Sub-Registrar, on the basis of which the proceedings under the Act of 1899 were initiated against the petitioner.

¶17

Placing reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Baccha vs State of U.P. and others, 2004 (96) RD 368, the contention is that the said report would only be relevant for the purpose of a reference but no reliance can be placed upon the said report subsequently while passing an order and as such the competent authority has patently erred in law in only placing reliance on the said report while passing the impugned order. The other argument is that once Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 provides for an inspection after due notice to the party and an application in this regard had duly been made by the petitioner while filing her objections as such competent authority has patently erred in law in rejecting the said application and thus on this ground alone, the order impugned dated 20.06.2019 merits to be set aside. He further states that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned orders and submits that the competent authority on the basis of material which was available with him, i.e., the report of the Sub-Registrar, has proceeded to pass the order impugned as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the same and thus it is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶19

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the records.

¶20

From a perusal of records it emerges that a plot of land had been purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale deed

¶21

on 23.02.2018. The sale deed is on record having been filed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. A report was submitted by the Sub-Registrar dated 01.02.2019. Based on the said report, proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 1899 have been initiated and order impugned dated 20.06.2019 has been passed whereby the petitioner has been required to pay additional stamp duty. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has also been rejected vide order dated 11.11.2021.

¶22

A perusal of the order impugned dated 20.06.2019 would indicate that the only material before the competent authority was the inspection report dated 01.02.2019. No other material has been considered by the competent authority while passing the said order, rather despite the application filed by the petitioner for a spot inspection as provided under Rules, 1997, the said application has been rejected.

¶23

This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra) wherein this Court has held as under:

¶24

"25. It has been found in several cases like the present one that the entire basis of determination of market value for the purpose of stamp duty is ex-parte report of Tehsildar or other officer. Ex-parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of Stamp Act. However, for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report. After initiation of the 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 of 1997. Moreover in the inspection report distance of the property from other residential or commercial properties and road must be shown and wherever possible sketch map must also be annexed alongwith the report so that correct valuation may be ascertained with reasonable certainty."

¶25

From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it emerges that though an ex-parte report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 but for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report and after initiation of the case, notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule- 7(3)(c) of the Rules, 1997 is a must.

¶26

Accordingly, considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra) it emerges that the order impugned dated 20.06.2019 as passed by the competent authority does not adhere to the aforesaid proposition of law in as much as no other material except for the ex-parte report as

¶27

submitted by the Sub-Registrar has been considered by the competent authority. This aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 11.11.2021.

¶28

Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed . The orders impugned dated 11.11.2021 and 20.06.2019, copies of which are Annexures 1 & 2 to the petition respectively, are quashed. Consequences to follow. The matter is remitted to the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3 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.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be appearing before the competent authority as and when a date is fixed by the competent authority.

¶30

Order Date :- 21.2.2024 Ashutosh

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramlali v. Addl.Commissioner Admin II Devi Patan Div.Gonda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramlali v. Addl.Commissioner Admin II Devi Patan Div.Gonda and Ors.

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

State of U.P. through Principal Secy. Tax Lucknow Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P.Allahabad

Satya Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Dr. Kashika Srivastava Vs Dr. Abhishek Saxena

Shri Chandra Bali Junior High School Shahapur, Thru. Manager Chandrika Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Pankaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko.and Ors.

Shri Chandra Bali Junior High School Shahapur, Thru. Manager Chandrika Prasad Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others