Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1598 (ALL)

Neeru Agrawal v. State of U. P.

2024-07-03

PIYUSH AGRAWAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Piyush Agrawal, J. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.C. Mishra, learned ACSC for State-respondents. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 28.1.2021 passed by respondent No. 2 in Revision No. 75 of 208 (State of U.P. v. Neeru Agarwal). 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased a land ad measuring 0.0385 hectare in Khasra No. 421 situated in village Kuvarpur Nagla Baas, Tehsil Hathras, through registered sale-deed dated 28.6.2016 after paying due stamp duty treating the land in question as agricultural land. He further submits that a report dated 28.6.2016 was submitted by the Sub-Registrar treating the land as non-agricultural land on the basis of which, the proceeding under Section 47 A of the Act was initiated against the petitioner and in pursuance thereof notice was issued to the petitioner to which a reply was submitted on each point mentioned in the show-cause notice. Thereafter the A.D.M. by the order dated 17.3.2017 has directed the Tehsildar Hathras to conduct a site inspection and submit a report, who has conducted the site inspection on 26.3.2017 and forwarded the report dated 30.3.2017 to the Additional District Magistrate on 3.4.2017 mentioned therein that on the land in question there was a standing crop as well as agricultural activities are being carried on nearing the vicinity of the land in question. Thereafter vide order dated 15.4.2017, the sale-deed dated 28.6.2016 was declared duly stamped and proceedings were dropped. However, against the said order, the State through Sub -Registrar has filed a revision before the Commissioner, Aligarh under Section 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, who by the order dated 28.1.2021 has allowed the revision and directed the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty to the tune of Rs.2,21,750/-, registration fee of Rs.9,240/- together with penalty of Rs.2,200/- alongwith interest of 1.5 percent per month. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that finding of fact recorded by the Additional District Magistrate has neither been reversed nor any independent finding has been recorded in the impugned order, therefore, the order is bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that perverse finding has been recorded in the impugned order that spot inspection should have been made before passing the impugned order by the authority himself. He further submits that perverse finding has been recorded in the impugned order that spot inspection should have been made before passing the impugned order by the authority himself. On the contrary, a specific finding has been recorded by the Additional District Magistrate vide order dated 26.3.2017 that spot inspection of the property in question was made. He submits that the said finding of fact has neither been denied nor been reversed but only on the basis of report submitted by Sub Registrar dated 28.6.2016, the impugned order has been passed. He prays for allowing the present writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC has justified the impugned order and prays for dismissing the writ petition. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 7. The record shows that the Additional District Magistrate while dropping the proceedings under Section 47 A vide order dated 15.4.2017 has specifically recorded a finding of fact in this respect, which is quoted hereunder : 8. However, against the said order, the State has preferred Revision N.. 75 of 2018 in which the following order has been passed : 9. On perusal of the said orders passed by the respondent authority, it shows that the impugned order has not reversed the finding of fact as recorded by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) while dropping the proceeding under Section 47 A of the Act. Further, from perusal of order dated 15.4.2017 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance), which was in favour the petitioner, there was specific finding that spot inspection was made on 26.3.2017 by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) himself, in which it was found that standing crops were found and near the vicinity of land in question agricultural activities have also been carried out and no residential activity was found over the land in question, therefore, there was no occasion to respondent No. 2 to pass the impugned order imposing deficiency of stamp together with penalty and registration charges without reversing the said finding of facts recorded in favour of the petitioner. 10. In view of above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 28.1.2021 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. 11. 10. In view of above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 28.1.2021 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. 11. This Court opined that the petitioner has unnecessarily been dragged up to the stage of this Court, therefore, the writ petition is allowed with the cost of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousands) which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today and compliance affidavit in this respect shall be filed by the respondent. 12. The State exchequer will be at liberty to recover the said cost from the erring officer. 13. List this case in chambers on 3.9.2024 in order to ensure the compliance of the order.