Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2471 (ALL)

Munna v. State of U. P.

2024-12-05

MANISH MATHUR

body2024
JUDGMENT : Manish Mathur, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 23.12.2006 passed under Section 47A of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 indicating deficiency in payment of stamp duty with regard to the sale deed dated 10.11.2004. Penalty and interest have also been imposed. Also under challenge is the order dated 25.10.2012 passed under Section 56 of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 rejecting appeal. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the authorities concerned have completely ignored plea raised by petitioner that construction found on the property was infact made subsequent to the date of purchase of the plot and therefore should not have been taken into account for purposes of imposition of stamp duty. It is also submitted that no spot inspection worth the name took place and as such, no actual measurements of the alleged constructions were ever taken due to which also calculation of stamp duty is erroneous. 4. It is also submitted that the authorities have also not taken into account the fact that the said constructions were raised illegally without any authorization of the petitioner and for which purpose a regular suit is already pending consideration before the Court concerned. It is, therefore, submitted that the evaluation of construction on the basis of report submitted by the Tehsildar on 10.06.2006 was unproved and could not have been taken into account. 5. Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that after execution of the sale deed, the first spot inspection took place on 13.03.2005. He has drawn attention to the spot inspection report to submit that it clearly indicates ten shops, one house or one Madarsa having been constructed over the portion of plot no.722, which has been purchased by the petitioner. 6. He has also drawn attention to the fact that actual measurements could not be taken in view of the fact that a mob had collected on the site which restrained the inspecting team from carrying out any other inspection. It is, therefore, submitted that properties have been valued on the basis of best judgement assessment in such circumstances. 7. 6. He has also drawn attention to the fact that actual measurements could not be taken in view of the fact that a mob had collected on the site which restrained the inspecting team from carrying out any other inspection. It is, therefore, submitted that properties have been valued on the basis of best judgement assessment in such circumstances. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the impugned orders have been passed primarily on the basis of permanent constructions having been raised on the plot in question. 8. Although it is the case of the petitioner that his pleading, that such construction was raised subsequent to the execution of sale deed, has not being taken into account, but, in considered opinion of this Court once such plea was being taken by the petitioner, the burden shifts upon him, particularly it is only the petitioner who could have proved such a fact by producing various receipts for the purposes to establish that such a construction was raised subsequent to the execution of sale deed. 9. Since the best available evidence with regard to such a submission could have been made only by the petitioner, no adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that such a burden has been shifted upon the petitioner himself in the impugned orders. 10. It is also evident from perusal of impugned orders that the aforesaid fact that the said permanent constructions exists over the property purchased by the petitioner, was admitted by him in the affidavits filed in various proceeding of regular suit pending between him and the alleged trespassers over the plot. 11. It is also a material fact that while property was purchased on 10.11.2004, the first spot inspection has taken place on 13.03.2005, which is barely a few months later. 12. It is not the case of petitioner that even at the time of spot inspection, no permanent construction existed over the plot in question. 13. 11. It is also a material fact that while property was purchased on 10.11.2004, the first spot inspection has taken place on 13.03.2005, which is barely a few months later. 12. It is not the case of petitioner that even at the time of spot inspection, no permanent construction existed over the plot in question. 13. In view of the above, in the case of Pushpa Sareen vs. State of U.P. and others , 2015 (33) LCD 1575 , the law has been clearly stated with regard to the aforesaid to the aspect of future potentiality of property being taken into account and the conditions indicated therein, are clearly applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner was unable to refute by evidence the fact of construction already present at the time of execution of sale deed. 14. Considering the aforesaid, the petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. 15. Parties to bear their own costs.