Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1519 (ALL)

B. R. Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya v. State of U. P.

2021-12-08

JAYANT BANERJI

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Akash Khare, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Hari Om Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 17.02.2006 passed by the Parganadhikari, Jhansi in Case No. 13/04-05 under Section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Act] whereby deficiency in stamp duty and penalty have been imposed on the petitioner. Also under challenge is an order dated 10.05.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Mandal, Jhansi whereby Appeal No. 12/05-06 filed by the petitioner under Section 56(1) of the Act, has been dismissed and the order of the Parganadhikari was upheld. Further under challenge is an order dated 24.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner rejecting the application for review of the appellate order dated 10.05.2006. 3. A perusal of the writ petition reveals that the petitioner had purchased 1.011 hectares of land of Arazi No. 125/2 situate at Village-Dagaria Rudra Pargana and District Jhansi by means of a registered sale-deed dated 21.09.2004 for the purported purpose of agriculture. A notice was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act to show cause why deficiency of stamp duty should not be assessed. An objection was filed by the petitioner stating that the land in question was purchased by it by agricultural purpose and at that point of time, rabi crops were shown over it. It was stated in the objection that the land was purchased for purpose of imparting training to the students of the Institution. However, without considering the objection filed by the petitioner, the valuation of the land in question was assessed on the basis of minimum rates and deficiency of stamp duty imposed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The review application filed by the petitioner was also dismissed thereafter. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of purchase of the property in question, the usage of the land was agricultural and the ex-parte inspection report of 28.04.2005 was made nearly seven months after the date of the execution of the sale-deed, on which date, the land was found vacant. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of purchase of the property in question, the usage of the land was agricultural and the ex-parte inspection report of 28.04.2005 was made nearly seven months after the date of the execution of the sale-deed, on which date, the land was found vacant. It is further stated that in the objection filed by the petitioner, a categorical stand was taken that standing rabi crop was shown over the land in question yet, the Parganadhikari, without taking recourse to the provisions of Rule 7(3) (c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, has proceeded to rely upon an ex-parte report and assessed the valuation and imposed the deficiency in stamp duty. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, opposed the writ petition on the ground that at the time of inspection, though it was found that the land was vacant but since the land in question was purchased in the name of a Degree College and the people residing in the vicinity informed that lands were being purchased by Institutions and the rates would be around Rs. 4 lacs per hectare, the valuation of the property in question was, accordingly, assessed. It is contended that the order of the Parganadhikari, therefore, cannot be faulted. 6. Having perused the record and after considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the inspection of the land in question forming the subject matter of the sale-deed executed on 21.09.2004 was done on 24.08.2005. It was specifically recorded in the report that the land in question was found vacant and an assessment had been made by the Additional City Magistrate, who conducted the spot inspection, only on the basis of the statement made by people in the vicinity. Though, the Parganadhikari has noticed the objection filed by the petitioner that the land was purchased for imparting education in farming to the children, the same was not considered. It is also evident that without relying upon any exemplar deed, the Parganadhikari has straightaway proceeded to rely upon the valuation made by the Additional City Magistrate in his report dated 28.04.2005, which was done on the basis of the minimum rates prescribed. 7. It is also evident that without relying upon any exemplar deed, the Parganadhikari has straightaway proceeded to rely upon the valuation made by the Additional City Magistrate in his report dated 28.04.2005, which was done on the basis of the minimum rates prescribed. 7. As has been held by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan alias Bachcha v. State of U.P. and another, 2005 (2) AWC 1087 , an ex-parte report, which can be the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 47A of the Act, cannot be relied upon by the authority concerned while assessing the valuation or the usage of a land. Under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, the Collector may make a spot inspection after due notice to parties to the instrument. Further, in the decision of a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Sareen vs. State of U.P. 2015 (3) ADJ 136 (FB), this Court has held that exemplar deeds are necessarily to be considered by the authority concerned for assessing the market value in view of Section 47-A(3) of the Act. The aforesaid exercise has not been done by the authority concerned. 8. A perusal of the order dated 10.05.2006 passed by the Commissioner also reveals that it has been passed with a closed mind without discussing the grounds raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal. As far as the order dated 24.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner is concerned, the same has been passed on a review application which is, anyway, not maintainable under the Act and, therefore, the order dated 24.01.2008 is quashed. 9. However, as far as the impugned orders dated 17.02.2006 and 10.05.2006 are concerned, in view of the discussion above, they are adjudged to be arbitrary and unilateral and are hereby quashed. 10. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.