Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 38 (ALL)

Seema v. Chief Controller Revenue Authority

2023-01-04

MANISH MATHUR

body2023
JUDGMENT Manish Mathur, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 30.03.2010 passed under section 47 A(3) Indian Stamp Act and order dated 17.07.2010 passed under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act passed in appeal no.127. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the property in question which are portion of Gata No.450, 469, Village Dodhepur, Pargana Diksir, Tehsil Tarabganj and District Gonda by means of the instrument of transfer dated 31.05.2008. It is submitted that upon presentation of the said document, proceedings under section 47 were drawn and by means of impugned order, the stamp duty was found to be deficient for which penalty has also been imposed upon petitioner. Appeal against the order has also been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that upon reference made being 47A of the Act, no spot inspection was ever done despite repeated request of petitioner and the impugned order has been passed only on the basis of an ex parte spot inspector report submitted by the Sub-Registrar dated 05.07.2008. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that aforesaid ex parte spot inspection report which forms the basis of impugned order is against the Rule 7(3)(c) of U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property), Rules 1997 which specifically provide that inspection of property can be done after due notice to the parties. Learned counsel submits that even the spot inspection report does not indicate notice ever being issued to parties to the instrument or even their presence at the time of spot inspection. Reliance has been placed on judgment rendered by coordinate benches of this Court in the cases of Ganga Ram v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2020(38) LCD 1991 and Smt. Saroj Verma v. State of U.P and others reported in 2022(40) LCD 1291. 4. It is submitted that in reply to the contents of writ petition, the opposite parties themselves in their counter affidavit in paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit have clearly admitted the fact that orders have been passed as per spot inspection done by Sub-registrar although the same was required to be done by the Collector as envisaged under Rule. 5. It is submitted that in reply to the contents of writ petition, the opposite parties themselves in their counter affidavit in paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit have clearly admitted the fact that orders have been passed as per spot inspection done by Sub-registrar although the same was required to be done by the Collector as envisaged under Rule. 5. Learned State counsel refuting submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioner submits that valuation of property has been correctly done by the authority concerned on the basis of report of Sub-registrar dated 05.07.2008 which clearly indicates the property to be situated within 500 square meters of the specified village requiring stamp duty to be imposed treating the property as residential. It is submitted that power of Collector are delegated to the Sub-Registrar had therefore the report itself cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Learned State counsel also submits that the deficiency in court fees and stamp duty is also on the basis of circle rate dated 01.04.2006. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it appears from reading of the impugned orders that deficiency in stamp duty has been indicated primarily on the basis of the spot inspection report dated 05.07.2008 submitted the Sub-Registrar, the circular regarding circle rate has also been made applicable on that basis. 7. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the orders impugned would be invalid on account of ex parte nature of the spot inspection report is therefore required to be seen in the context of Rule 7(3)(c) of U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 which is specifically required inspection of property after due notice to parties upon receipt of reference or suo moto action under Section 47 A of the Act. The question regarding mandatory in nature of the aforesaid provision has already been considered by coordinate benches of this Court in cases of Ganga Ram and Smt. Saroj Verma (supra) wherein it has been held that proceedings under section 47A of the Act shall not be decided merely placing reliance on ex parte report of Sub-Registrar or the Tehsildar for that purpose. The same analogy has also been drawn in the other judgement indicates in the case of Smt. Saroj Verma. 8. The same analogy has also been drawn in the other judgement indicates in the case of Smt. Saroj Verma. 8. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present case, it is evident from the pleading in the counter affidavit as well as the impugned orders that sport inspection was done by the Sub Registrar on 05.07.2008. It is also evident from pleadings that same was the only spot inspection done in the present reference under section 47A of the Act. A reading of the spot inspection report itself indicates that no prior notice whatsoever was provided to the parties to the instrument nor is their presence indicated at the time of spot inspection. The impugned orders also placed reliance on the said spot inspection report to indicate deficiency in stamp duty taking the properties as nonagricultural only on the basis of said report indicating that no agricultural activity is being conducted in the property in question. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and nor initiated on the ground on this point, it is apparent that impugned orders having been passed only on the basis of ex parte spot inspection report are unsustainable and in view of law indicated in the aforesaid and therefore the impugned order dated 30.03.2010 passed under section 47A(3) in Stamp Case No.150/2009-2010 and the order dated 17.07.2010 passed in appeal no.127 are hereby quashed. 10. It is observed that vide interim order dated 31.08.2010, the operation of impugned order for same subject to petitioners deposited Rs.25,000/-within stipulated time period in this Court. 11. Considering the fact that petition itself is being allowed, the petitioner is granted liberty to withdraw the aforesaid amount which shall be remitted expeditiously within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is furnished. 12. Consequently, the petition stands allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.