Allowed

Lucky Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Stamp Lucknow Division Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2025WRIC/1004454/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stamp deficiency proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were challenged because the valuation rested solely on the initial ex parte Naib Tehsildar report that had initiated those proceedings, contrary to precedent and Rule 7(3)(c). The writ quashed both the deficiency order and the appellate rejection, with refund of any deposit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 28.08.2010 and 23.09.2013 quashed by writ of Certiorari; refund of any deposited amount within four weeks.

Lucky Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner Stamp Lucknow… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11934

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1004454 of 2014

¶4

Petitioner :- Lucky Singh

¶5

Respondent :- Deputy Commissioner Stamp Lucknow Division Lucknow And Ors

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Ji Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Mr. R.J. Trivedi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

¶9

Petition has been filed assailing order dated 28.08.2010 passed under section 47-A(3) of Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1899) whereby deficiency in registration of sale deed has been indicated along with imposition of penalty and interest. Also under challenge is order dated 23.09.2013 whereby Appeal preferred by petitioner under Section 56 of the Act of 1899 has been rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a perusal of impugned orders will make it evident that they are based solely on the report dated 18.01.2010 submitted by Naib Tehsildar concerned. It is submitted that aforesaid report was the basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899 and could not have been relied upon for determination of market value in subsequent proceedings. It is further submitted that even otherwise, aforesaid report which has been relied upon for indicating deficiency of stamp duty is an ex parte report and therefore is in violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997.

¶11

He has further submitted that although order of appellate court indicates that the trial court order is based on exemplars pertaining to adjoining property, in fact no such exemplars have

¶12

been recorded in the order passed under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899. He has placed reliance on decisions rendered in Ganga Ram v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 (38) LCD 1991 as well as Smt. Leelawati Kothari and another v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and another [WRIT - C No. - 1005952 of 2006].

¶13

Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that impugned order clearly indicates that non-conversion of any agricultural property under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is irrelevant for purposes of imposition of stamp duty and valuation thereunder. It is submitted that the area of a property is a relevant aspect to be determined for purposes of valuation of the property concerned as has been held in Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - C No. - 42711 of 2013]. It is also submitted that since the property in question was within 100 mtrs. of the Azad Road as per report dated 18.01.2010, valuation/market value of plot in question has been determined in pursuance thereof.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident from impugned order passed under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899 that it is based solely on the spot inspection report dated 18.01.2010 which was the basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899. It appears that no subsequent inspection of the property has taken place. This Court in Ganga Ram (supra) has held that initial inspection report which is the basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899 cannot be relied upon for determination of market value during the course of proceedings.

¶15

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment, it is evident that initial spot inspection report dated 18.01.2010 forms the very basis of impugned order passed under Section 47-A(3) of the Act of 1899. The very premise therefor is vitiated and against the dictum of aforesaid judgment.

¶16

Even otherwise, it is noticed that the inspection report dated 18.01.2010 is an exparte report, which has been filed without due compliance of Rule 7(3)(c) of Rules of 1997 which have been held to be mandatory in nature by judgment of this Court rendered in Ganga Ram(supra).

¶17

A perusal of impugned appellate order also indicates the fact that the appellate authority has refused to interfere in the matter on ground that the area of property in question would be a relevant factor for determining market value. However, in the present case, area as well as its location is completely based on the report of Naib Tehsildar dated 18.01.2010, which, as has been held herein above, is against the statutory provisions of the Act of 1899.

¶18

Appellate order also refuses interference on ground that order passed under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899 is based on exemplars whereas no such exemplars have been indicated in the said order. Thus, appellate order is also against the material on record.

¶19

In Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2005 (2) JCLR 610 (Allahabad), this court has held as under:-

¶20

"9. Entire basis of report of Tahsildar and judgment of A.D.M. is that the land is of residential use/ potential (Awasiya prayojan). Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the land in dispute is having Abadi potential, still no basis of determining its valuation has been given. Once sale deed is registered then for determining market value of the land under Section 47-A Stamp Act no reliance can be placed upon Rules of 1997. If a case is instituted under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act after registration of the deed particularly sale-deed then valuation has to be determined on the general principles applicable for determining market value of immovable property. The method of determining market value and the

¶21

factors to be taken into consideration for the said purpose have been discussed in detail and laid down with precision by the Courts white determining quantum of compensation under Land Acquisition laws. Exactly same principles shall apply for determining market value while deciding a case by Collector under Section 47-A Stamp Act. "

¶22

The enunciation of law as indicated in Ram Khelawan(supra) also have not been adhered to while passing impugned orders.

¶23

Considering aforesaid aspects, the impugned orders dated 28.08.2010 and 23.09.2013 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari.

¶24

In case any amount has been deposited by petitioner in pursuance of impugned orders, the opposite parties are directed to refund the same to petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon authority concerned.

¶25

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The parties to bear their own costs.

¶26

Order Date :- 27.2.2025 kvg/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lucky Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Stamp Lucknow Division Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucky Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Stamp Lucknow Division Lucknow 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

Mudit Birthada Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Medical Education, Lko. and Others

Mudit Birthada Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Education, Lko. and Others

Mudit Birthada vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Medical Education, Lko. and Others

C/M S.G.M Institute of Pharmacy, Ghazipur Thru. Director, Alok Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. / Joint Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko. and Others

Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education, Lko. and Others

Smt. Mithilesh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Institutional Finance, Lko. and Others