Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3865 (ALL)

Satendra Yadav v. State of U. P.

2016-11-30

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2016
JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. By registered sale-deed dated 22.2.2010 land was purchased by the petitioner and stamp fees was paid. After it the Collector, Ghaziabad (Respondent no.-3) had issued show cause notice dated 23.6.2010 in which it was mentioned that petitioner had paid deficient stamp fees of Rs. 6,55,200/-. On this notice petitioner had filed explanation, considering which order dated 18.9.2010 was passed by respondent no.-3 in case no. 42 of 2010-11. By this order, treating the land in question not agricultural land but residential one, the Collector had confirmed the reasons mentioned in the said notice and directed the petitioner to pay deficient stamp fees of Rs. 6,55,200/- alongwith penalty of Rs. 3,27,600/-. 2. Against said order dated 18.9.2010 of respondent no.-3, Appeal no. 121 of 2010-11, Satendra Yadav and others Vs. State of UP and others was preferred which was allowed by the judgment dated 14.3.2011 of Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut. By this order said appellate court had set aside the order dated 18.9.2010 of respondent no.-3 and remanded the matter with direction to afford opportunity of hearing to petitioner and pass fresh orders. 3. Thereafter respondent no.-3 had again heard the matter of Case no. 42/2010-11 and passed judgment dated 30.10.2012 by which land in question was treated as commercial property and amount of deficiency of stamp fees was raised and held as Rs. 16,38,000/-. Respondent no.-3 had directed the petitioner to pay this amount of deficient stamp fee alongwith penalty of Rs. 1,63,800/-. 4. Against this order dated 30.10.2012 of respondent no.-3, the petitioner had preferred an Appeal no. 11(M)/2-12-13, Satendra Yadav Vs. State of UP. This appeal was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 3.7.2013 of respondent no.-2 at Circuit Court, Meerut. The order dated 30.10.2012 passed by respondent no.-3 and judgment dated 3.7.2013 passed by respondent no.-2 Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, has been challenged in the present writ petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the impugned orders are erroneous but the petitioner is ready to pay the alleged deficient stamp fees (of Rs. 6,55,200/-) mentioned in first notice dated 23.6.2010. However, her further submission is that once this amount (of Rs. 6,55,200/-) was determined as deficient stamp fees then it cannot be enhanced with subsequent development on or around disputed property. 6. 6,55,200/-) mentioned in first notice dated 23.6.2010. However, her further submission is that once this amount (of Rs. 6,55,200/-) was determined as deficient stamp fees then it cannot be enhanced with subsequent development on or around disputed property. 6. These submissions were opposed by standing counsel, who submitted that in this matter approximate stamp duty was mentioned in the earlier notice dated 23.6.2010, but after considering evidence and exemplars mentioned in the report, impugned orders were passed which are not erroneous. 7. It is admitted case that at the time of execution of registered sale-deed in question dated 22.2.2010 the property in question was the agricultural property. This fact was neither denied in the notice dated 23.6.2010 nor in earlier order dated 18.9.2010 passed by respondent no.-3. In said order dated 18.9.2010, respondent no.-3 (Collector, Ghaziabad) had never held that disputed property was not agricultural land. This point was mentioned in his order that there has been consistent averment of petitioner that disputed property is agricultural land and there was no residential plot sold in its vicinity. So far averment mention in judgment dated 19.9.2010 regarding disputed property being considered residential one, those averments are without any satisfactory basis. If the petitioner had paid the stamp fees on 22.2.2010 at the rate applicable on residential land and not at the rate fixed for agricultural land, even then this fact would not prove that the nature of said land was not agricultural but was that of residential one. 8. After passing of order dated 18.9.2010, appeal was preferred and matter was remanded, then the respondent no.-3 had again passed order dated 13.10.2012 treating the disputed land as commercial property. Once this fact has been accepted by respondent side that disputed property was not commercial land till judgment dated 18.9.2010, then they are estopped from pleading otherwise. The stamp fees has been levied on the nature of property at the time of execution of instrument (sale-deed in question in this case). There has never been any evidence before the respondents that at the time of execution of sale-deed dated 22.2.2010 the land in question was agricultural property or any residential land was sold in vicinity of it; but they have issued notice dated 23.6.2010 treating it as residential property. There has never been any evidence before the respondents that at the time of execution of sale-deed dated 22.2.2010 the land in question was agricultural property or any residential land was sold in vicinity of it; but they have issued notice dated 23.6.2010 treating it as residential property. When said order was set aside in appeal and matter was remanded, then the respondents had changed their earlier averment and the impugned order dated 23.10.2012 was passed treating it as commercial property; and accordingly deficiency of stamp fees at the time of execution of sale-deed was raised exorbitantly treating it as commercial property. Without any shadow of doubt the impugned order dated 13.10.2012 passed by respondent no.-3 treating the disputed property as commercial property is erroneous. Without considering these facts the judgment dated 7.3.2013 passed by respondent no.-2 in appeal is apparently erroneous and perverse. Therefore, those impugned orders dated 30.10.2012 and 7.3.2013 are set aside. But since the petitioner had consented to pay amount of Rs. 6,55,200/- mentioned in first notice as stamp fees, therefore in public interest and interest of State, this submission/proposal is accepted. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 6,55,200/- as against notice dated 23.6.2010 without any penalty. If petitioner does not pay this amount within two months from today then said amount will be recovered from him alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this order. The amount already deposited against said notice during appeal shall be adjusted in said payment. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed.