Allowed

Smt. Simmi Dhawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2024WRIC/5501/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged ex-parte orders imposing stamp duty deficiency and penalties. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing orders that relied on an inspection report without prior notice to the petitioner in violation of statutory rules mandating due notice for property valuation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 30.06.2011 and 04.11.2023 quashed. Matter remanded for fresh inspection with due notice and refund of deposited amount.

Smt. Simmi Dhawan vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46078

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5501 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Simmi Dhawan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, the present petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.

¶9

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the ex-parte enquiry report dated 11.09.2006 conducted by the Sub Registrar- 1st, Lucknow, the impugned order dated 30.06.2011 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Lucknow under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1899') as well as the appellate order dated 04.11.2023 passed under Section 56(1-A) of the Act, 1899 and with a further prayer to direct the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry, if required, according to Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1997').

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had purchased a commercial plot no. CP-3, area 349.65 sq. meter situated at Kanpur Road Yojna, Ward Vidyawati Devi, District Lucknow by a registered sale deed dated 14.08.2006, after paying a stamp duty as per the Rules/Circle Rate.

¶11

It is further submitted that after purchase of the land, the petitioner has raised a temporary construction of three shops on the land which has been purchased for commercial purposes and constructed a boundary wall on the whole land. The respondent no. 4 i.e. the Sub Registrar-1st, Lucknow on 09.09.2006 alleged to have made an inspection of the land from outside of the boundary, without giving any notice or prior information to the petitioner and submitted an exparte report on 11.09.2006. In pursuance thereof, a reference was made to the Collector for deficiency of stamp duty paid by the petitioner at the time of the registration of the instrument.

¶12

It is further submitted that the Collector, without making any inspection as required under Rule 7(3) (c) of 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 respondent no. 4 had ever issued any notice to the petitioner nor the Collector had ever conducted any inspection of the property and mainly on the basis of the exparte inspection report submitted by the respondent no. 4 has decided the matter against the petitioner for paying the deficiency of stamp duty along with penalty. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Rule 56(1-A) of the Act, 1899 taking a specific plea in the appeal that if any inspection of the property is made without prior notice, it is in contravention of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, 1997 and had also specifically pleaded that a temporary shop was raised after purchase of the land but on both the issues, no finding has been given by the appellate authority and reiterated the order passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Lucknow.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel

¶14

has submitted that no notice is required at the time of spot inspection made by the respondent no. 4. 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.

¶15

The said submission made by learned Standing Counsel is not accepted for the reason that any exparte 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 in accordance with 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 ex-parte inspection report submitted by respondent no. 4.

¶16

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 respondent no. 4 was an ex-parte inspection on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the impugned orders have been passed placing reliance upon the same 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

¶17

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

¶19

"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

¶20

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 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 Respondent No.4.

¶22

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 inspection as required under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, 1997. The impugned orders placing reliance upon the exparte inspection conducted by the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Sub Registrar-1st, Lucknow is not permissible and the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law.

¶23

The appellate authority has also failed to consider the fact that the order under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 passed against the petitioner without making any inspection as required under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, 1997. Both the orders placed reliance reliance upon the ex-parte inspection report conducted by the respondent no. 4 and the appellate authority has also given a finding that it is an admitted case of the petitioner that the shops are there on the same land failing completely to consider that the averment made by the petitioner in his appeal that the shops are temporary construction, covered by asbestos sheets and constructed after execution of the registered sale deed not prior to that but no finding has been given by the appellate authority

¶24

on the ground taken by the petitioner in his appeal.

¶25

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

¶26

The ex-parte enquiry report dated 11.09.2006 conducted by the Sub Registrar- 1st, Lucknow, the impugned order dated 30.06.2011 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Lucknow under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1899') as well as the appellate order dated 04.11.2023 passed under Section 56(1-A) of the Act, 1899 are hereby quashed.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 Nitesh

¶30

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

Smt. Simmi Dhawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Simmi Dhawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and 3 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Abhishek Verma vs Mamta Verma

Patan vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Distt. Bahraich and Another

Rajmani Mishra vs Nirmala Mishra and Another

Kriti Shukla and Another vs Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division ) Malihabad Lucknow and 3 Others

Ram Vilas and Another vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) External Court,Nighasan Distt. Kheri and 2 Others