Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1235 (ALL)

Arun Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

2024-05-08

SHEKHAR B.SARAF

body2024
JUDGMENT : Shekhar B. Saraf, J. 1. This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated June 8, 2021 passed by Deputy Commissioner Stamps, Kanpur Region, Kanpur/the respondent No. 2 and the impugned order dated December 4, 2020 passed by Collector Stamps, Etawah/the respondent No.3 FACTS 2. Factual matrix of the present case is delineated below: (a) The case pertains to payment of deficient stamp duty while registering a sale-deed bearing Document No.2266 of 2017, dated April 7, 2017, whereby the petitioner had purchased Plot No.388, area 162.63 square meters in Mohalla Manikpur Vishu, Etawah at the rate of Rs.18000/- per square meter and paid stamp duty of Rs. 2,05,100 at a rate of 7 percent. (b) On February 22, 2018, a report was submitted by the office of the Accountant General, Lucknow to the respondent No.3 that there is deficiency in the stamp duty on the aforesaid sale-deed. Subsequently, a case was registered against the petitioner by issuing notice to him. (c) On August 5, 2019, the petitioner submitted his objection with a prayer that in order to ascertain the correct fact as to whether the plot in question is commercial or non-commercial, the competent authority is required to get the spot inspected. (d) The respondent No.3 directed the Deputy Registrar, Etawah/the respondent No.4 to make a spot inspection of the land in question. The respondent No.4 made the spot inspection on January 6, 2019 and submitted his report on January 7, 2019. (e) On December 4, 2020, the respondent No.3 passed an order directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.6,03,190/- along with a penalty of Rs.1,000/-, totaling Rs. 6,04,190/-, with respect to the sale deed bearing Document No.2266/2017. He also directed the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 1.50 percent per month on the deficit stamp duty from the date of execution of the instrument i.e. April 7, 2017 till the date of deposit of the stamp duty. 6,04,190/-, with respect to the sale deed bearing Document No.2266/2017. He also directed the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 1.50 percent per month on the deficit stamp duty from the date of execution of the instrument i.e. April 7, 2017 till the date of deposit of the stamp duty. (f) Against the order passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 56 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 before the respondent No.2 who, vide order dated June 8, 2021, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated December 4, 2020 passed by the respondent No.3. (g) It is to be noted that the petitioner made an application before the Competent Authority for rectification of the sale deed indicating the nature of the land to be agricultural. Such application was allowed on March 8, 2021. (h) Being aggrieved by the orders dated December 4, 2020 and June 8, 2021 passed by the authorities below, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition before this Court. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER 3. Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made the following submissions in the matter: i. Initially there was an error in the sale deed in question as in the sale deed the land was described as commercial instead of non- agricultural. This mistake was subsequently rectified and the word ‘commercial’ was substituted by the word ‘non-agricultural’. The rectification was duly approved by the registration authority and the stamp duty was paid accordingly. ii. The authorities below have passed the impugned orders in violation of established legal procedures. This includes non consideration of important evidence such as the spot inspection report submitted by the respondent No. 4 which should have been given due weightage in the decision making process. iii. The impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal since they are based on non-existing grounds. This is evident from the fact that the land in question was determined to be agricultural in nature, not commercial, as per the spot inspection report. iv. The petitioner corrected the mistake in the sale-deed promptly upon discovering it. The correction deed clearly states that the land is non- agricultural and not commercial. Therefore, any penalty or deficiency imposed based on the initial mistake should not apply after the correction. iv. The petitioner corrected the mistake in the sale-deed promptly upon discovering it. The correction deed clearly states that the land is non- agricultural and not commercial. Therefore, any penalty or deficiency imposed based on the initial mistake should not apply after the correction. v. The petitioner paid stamp duty based on the correct valuation of Rs.18,000/- per square meter for agricultural land. The authorities incorrectly valued it at the rate of Rs.71,000/- per square meter for commercial land, leading to the alleged deficiency. vi. The respondent No.4 in the spot inspection found no construction on the land and recommended valuation at Rs.18000/- per square meter. However, the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.2 relied on the report submitted by the office of the Accountant General, which is based on non-existing grounds. vii. The authorities failed to consider crucial evidences, such as the Khasra showing the land as agricultural, the correction made in the sale-deed and the spot inspection report confirming the nature of the land as non-agricultural. viii. The petitioner deposited a sum to satisfy the revenue authorities and avoid coercive measures such as arrest. This action was taken under duress and does not validate the legality of the orders passed. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS 4. Sri Rishi Kumar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has made the following submissions in the matter: I. The petitioner did not pay the required stamp duty on a commercial land as per the prevailing rates. II. The orders passed by the authorities are neither unreasoned nor unlawful and have been passed after due consideration of the rules and the regulations, without any illegality. III. The circle rates are set annually by the District Magistrate and the deficiency in stamp duty was correctly identified and imposed. IV. In the sale deed itself, it has been mentioned by the petitioner that the land in question is commercial, and therefore, as per Column 5, Serial No.8 Page 72 of the prevalent rate list dated June 8, 2016, the total valuation was calculated to Rs. 1,15,46,730/- on which stamp duty of Rs. 8,08,290/- was required to be paid, whereas the petitioner has paid Rs.2,05,100/- only against the stamp duty. So, there is a clear deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 6,03,190/-. ANALYSSIS 5. I have heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. 6. 1,15,46,730/- on which stamp duty of Rs. 8,08,290/- was required to be paid, whereas the petitioner has paid Rs.2,05,100/- only against the stamp duty. So, there is a clear deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 6,03,190/-. ANALYSSIS 5. I have heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. 6. The present case involves a dispute with regard to correct stamp duty payable for a property transaction due to the classification of the land as commercial or non-agricultural. The petitioner argues that the rectification was promptly made upon discovering the initial mistake and that the authorities failed to consider the crucial evidences supporting the non- commercial classification. On the other hand, the respondents assert that the deficiency in the stamp duty was correctly identified based on prevailing rates and the petitioner's own declaration in the sale-deed. 7. Upon a perusal of the order passed by the respondent No.3, it can be seen that he has relied upon the objections of the Accountant General with respect to the sale deed in question and came to the conclusion that the sold land was shown to be of commercial nature at the time of the registration of the sale deed. Hence, the sale deed shall be subjected to the calculation of stamp fee at the commercial rate of Rs.71,000/- per square meter. 8. It can be further noted from the perusal of the appellate order passed by the respondent No.2 that he also made the same finding that on the date of the registration of the sale deed, the land was shown as the commercial land by the parties and in light of this fact, the spot inspection report submitted by the respondent No.4 can not be accepted and the order passed by the respondent No.3 was upheld. 9. The approach of the authorities below is without any basis in law as they have imposed the deficient stamp duty only for the reason that the petitioner had initially in the sale deed mentioned the property as commercial land. The authorities below have not considered the fact that this mistake of mentioning the land as commercial was rectified by the petitioner. 10. The authorities below have not considered the fact that this mistake of mentioning the land as commercial was rectified by the petitioner. 10. It is to be noted that the relevance of the spot verification carried out by the authorities themselves is paramount in nature and it is from such verification that the assessment was carried out by the authorities with regard to the nature of the land. For example, if a person in a deed of sale states that the land, that is being sold, is agricultural land containing a water body and on the spot verification it is found out that the land is actually being used for the purpose of running a factory, it is the spot verification that has to be taken into consideration by the authorities concerned. The description of the property as given by the vendor/vendee in a registration deed cannot, under any circumstances, be accepted as the ultimate truth de hors the inspection carried out by the authorities. 11. In the present case, it is clear that the spot verification carried out by the authorities indicated that the property was non commercial in nature. The rejection of such spot verification without assigning any reason to the same only on the basis that the deed that was registered, indicated that the property was commercial in nature, is clearly arbitrary and illegal in law. 12. In light of the same, the impugned orders dated December 4, 2020 and June 8, 2021 are quashed and set-aside. The authorities are directed to refund the deficient stamp duty, if any, paid by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from date. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.