Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1773 (ALL)

Mohammad Aqeel v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

2024-07-31

PIYUSH AGRAWAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad in Stamp Appeal No. 886/2014-15 as well as the impugned order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) in Case No. 1360/stamp/2011/1581 under section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute is recorded as agricultural land. On 31.01.2011, a sale deed was executed after paying requisite stamp duty. On 17.02.2011, the Sub Registrar submitted a report stating therein that the land in dispute is a residential land and the stamp duty is payable accordingly. On the basis of the said report, proceedings under section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner, which was transferred to the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) (Second), Lucknow for disposal. On 13.10.2011, the petitioner filed objection. On 06.01.2014, the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order holding the disputed plot as residential land and accordingly, imposed stamp duty, along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.08.2021 without considering the reports which were in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the report of the Sub Registrar dated 17.02.2011 is based on no evidence, but assumption and against the revenue records. He further submits that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the khasra entries of the disputed plot prepared by the revenue authority. He further submits that in the objection, the petitioner has specifically stated that various crops of wheat, etc. are being grown, but without considering the material on record, the impugned order has been passed. He further submits that the report also shows that the land in question is for agricultural purposes. He further submits that no weightage was given to the khasra -khatauni annexed by the petitioner while passing the impugned orders. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 7. He further submits that no weightage was given to the khasra -khatauni annexed by the petitioner while passing the impugned orders. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the land was purchased on 31.01.2011 as agricultural land and on the basis of an ex parte report, proceedings under section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner has brought on record the evidence to show that standing crops were there over the land in dispute, which is evident from the khasra -khatauni, but no due weightage was given while passing the impugned orders. The perusal of the reports prepared on 26.04.2013, 06.05.2013, 22.06.2013, 30.07.2013, 13.09.2013 and 20.09.2013 would reveal that there are material contradictions in respect of the residential activities over the land in dispute, but no sight map/Nazari Naksha was prepared and the impugned orders were passed without considering the aforesaid fact. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad in Stamp Appeal No. 886/2014-15 as well as the impugned order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) in Case No. 1360/stamp/2011/1581 are hereby quashed. 9. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 10. The matter is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner of Stamps (Second), Lucknow to reconsider the issue afresh after hearing all stake holders without a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. Any amount deposited during the pendency of the proceedings, shall be subject to the outcome of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Stamps.