Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 478 (ALL)

PREM SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-02-08

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 21.1.2000 and 21.5.2000 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Agra Commissioner Agra Division Agra and the Additional District Magistrate/(Finance and Revenue) Agra, respectively. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a deed was executed by one Ram Babu in favour of the petitioner on 20.11.1996 in respect of the plot No. 960 area measuring 15 biswa situated in Mauja Kakretha, Tehsil and District Agra for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. By this deed the said Ram Babu assigned and released his rights in respect of the acquired land in question in favour of the petitioner. A Stamp duty amounting to Rs. 727/- was paid by the petitioner as per Article 55 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1899). 3. The case of the petitioner was that the land in question had been acquired by the U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parisad under Section 28 of the U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam, 1965) corresponding to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894) vide notification dated 4.4.1970. A declaration under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1965 corresponding to Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was made on 20.6.1980. Possession of the land was taken by the U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad on 20.3.1985 and an award was made on 26.8.1985. 4. The case of the petitioner, however, was that the original tenure holder of the plot Nos. 960 and 959 was one Gambhir Singh. The said Gambhir Singh executed a deed in respect of plot No. 959 on 2.12.1986 in favour of the petitioner. This deed was also an assignment and release of rights in the property. A similar deed of plot No. 960 area 15 biswa was transferred in favour of the one Ram Babu vide deed dated 3.9.1985 assigning and releasing his rights in the property in favour of Ram Babu and on the said sale-deed stamp duty of Rs. 425/- was paid as per Article 55 of Schedule 1-B of the Act, 1899. Subsequently, the said plot was transferred by Ram Babu in favour of the petitioner. 5. In terms of the award dated 26.8.1985, an award amounting to Rs. 425/- was paid as per Article 55 of Schedule 1-B of the Act, 1899. Subsequently, the said plot was transferred by Ram Babu in favour of the petitioner. 5. In terms of the award dated 26.8.1985, an award amounting to Rs. 29,665.40/- was received by the aforesaid Ram Babu. Ram Babu preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and it is during the pendency of this reference before the Tribunal, that the deed in question was executed in favour of the petitioner by which Ram Babu assigned his rights in the land. However, proceedings under Section 47 of the Act, 1899 were initiated on a reference made by the Sub-Registrar dated 21.11.1996, wherein, it was stated that there was a deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 2,11,915/- and the deficiency of registration charges of Rs. 4,900/-. The petitioner contested the notice claiming that the deed was only a deed of assignment and not a deed of conveyance of title or interest in the land which had been acquired by the U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad. However, the respondent No. 3 by his impugned order dated 21.5.1999 held that the instrument in question was a deed of conveyance and stamp duty thereon was chargeable as provided under Article 23 of Schedule 1-B of the Act, 1899 and accordingly imposed a deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 2,11,915.50/- and Rs. 4,900/- as deficiency of registration changes 6. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 56 of the Act, 1899 which was also rejected by the Commissioner, Agra division Agra/Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by the impugned order dated 21.1.2000. 7. Hence the present writ petition. 8. I have heard Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 9. The submission of Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha is that the instrument in question was a deed of assignment in respect of an undetermined amount of monetary benefit which was the subject-matter of the reference preferred by Sri Ram Babu under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and it was not a deed of conveyance of title or interest in the land in question which had already been acquired by the U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad in acquisition proceedings culminating in the award dated 26.8.1985. In this view of the matter Sri Kulshreshtha submitted that stamp duty on assignment of rights to the mandatory benefits, stamp duty was chargeable and rightly paid as provided under Article 55 of the Act, 1899 and the deficiency of stamp duty computed by the respondent No. 3 treating the instrument to be a deed of conveyance was based upon a complete misconception of law. 10. Sri Kulshrestha further submitted that the Revenue Authority also failed to consider the specific objection of the petitioner and has only followed the order passed by the respondent No. 3 the A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue). 11. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also very fairly acknowledged and accepted that the instrument in question was the deed of assignment and not a deed of transfer of title or interest in the property inasmuch as the land in question had already been acquired by the U.P. Awas Avam Vikas Parishad and therefore, by the instrument in question what had been transferred was an assignment of interest of an undetermined future monetary benefit which was the subject-matter of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 preferred by Sri Ram Babu. 12. Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha has placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Applicant v. M/s Anti Biotic Project Virbhadra Rishikesh, AIR 1979 All 355 and particularly referred to observations made by the Full Bench in paras 9 and 11 of the said judgment. Paras 9 and 11 of the Full Bench judgment read as follows: “9. Next comes the question whether the instrument could be considered to be a “conveyance.” The term “conveyance” has been defined in Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act as under : “Conveyance—“Conveyance” includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether movable or immovable is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I, Schedule I-A or Schedule I-B, as the case may be”. This term denotes an instrument in writing by which some title or interest is transferred from one person to another. It would appear from this definition that an actual transfer of property is an essential feature of a “conveyance”. Consequently, an agreement to transfer property in the future cannot be treated as a conveyance. 11. This term denotes an instrument in writing by which some title or interest is transferred from one person to another. It would appear from this definition that an actual transfer of property is an essential feature of a “conveyance”. Consequently, an agreement to transfer property in the future cannot be treated as a conveyance. 11. Emphasis may be laid at this place on the words “on sale” and “is transferred” used in the definition of the word ‘conveyance’. These words are significant. They denote that the document itself should create or vest a complete title in the subject-matter of the transfer in the vendee. If, therefore, there is no transfer, the requirement of conveyance or sale could not be said to be satisfied. A perusal of the various clauses of the instrument would show that no transfer or water took place under it,. Parties had simply agreed to sell and purchase water in the future. Even the amount which was payable by the company was not stated in this document. The quantum of the liability depended on a future contingency..............” Article 23 (a) of Schedule 1-B of the Act, 1899 reads as follows: Article 55 of Schedule 1-B of the Act, 1899 reads as follows : 13. Therefore, from a reading of the Article 55 and applying the ratio of the Full Bench to the facts of the present case it will be seen that the deed in question was a deed of assignment of interest in the undetermined amount of monetary benefits pending consideration in reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 there was no conveyance or transfer of title or interest in the property which had already been acquired by the U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad. 14. Thus in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench and having regard of the facts of the present case, the impugned orders dated 21.5.1999 and 21.1.2000 are absolutely illegal and based upon a misconception and misreading of the instrument in question, and the provisions of the Act, 1899 and the same are liable to be quashed. 15. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.5.1999 and 21.1.2000 are quashed. 16. There shall be no order as to cost. ——————