Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Brij Pal Singh And 4 Others on 6 February, 2024
Author: Saral Srivastava
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:20728 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19118 of 2022 Petitioner :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Brij Pal Singh And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nimai Dass Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner-State has assailed the order dated 09.07.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Stamp Appeal No.509 of 2021 (computerized Case No.C2021060000509) (Brij Pal Singh and another Vs. State of U.P.), by which the appeal of the respondent under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act against the order dated 20.03.2021 passed by the Collector Stamp in Case No. 1962 of 2020 (computerized case No.D202006370001962) under Section 33/47A of Indian Stamp Act has been set aside.
3. The record reflects that the respondents have purchased a plot No.1211 having an area of 415.61 square meters by sale deed dated No.1231/2020 executed on 15.02.2020. It appears that a proceeding under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act was drawn against the respondents on the ground that in the sale deed they had shown the plot far away from the national highway, and thus, the correct facts have not been stated in the sale deed to evade the payment of correct stamp duty. Further ground on which the proceeding was initiated was that an unmetalled road of 3.66 meters was constructed connecting the plot in question to the highway in order to show that the plot in question was not on the national highway.
4. The respondents filed objection contending inter-alia that the report of the Sub Registrar-I, Jhansi Sadar dated 18.06.2020 was an ex-parte report and gives incorrect description of the plot. The Collector Stamp concluded that in fact the plot in question is on the national highway and only an unmetalled road of 3.66 meters has been constructed to connect the plot with the national highway in order to show that the plot is not on the national highway. He further recorded a finding that the plot in question is in fact on the the national highway, and thus he determined the stamp duty.
5. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, who allowed the appeal on the ground that the map of the plot has been enclosed at page 17 of the sale deed, which shows that 3.66 meters road is between the plot of Priyanka Yadav and Vaibhav Hayaaran, and thereafter, the boundary of the plot of the respondents has been shown in the map. He further recorded a finding that the plot of Priyanka Yadav and Vaibhav Hayaran are adjacent to the national highway, whereas the plot in question as shown in the sale deed is situated on 3.66 meters road from the national highway and the appellate authority found that correct stamp duty has been paid. Consequently, it allowed the appeal.
6. Challenging the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the appellate authority is perverse and against the record inasmuch as the report of the Sub Registrar-I, Jhansi dated 18.06.2020 clearly shows that the plot of the respondents is on the highway and an unmetalled road of 3.66 meters has been constructed to depict that the plot is not on the highway only with an intention to evade the stamp duty. It is submitted that the appellate authority has failed to appreciate the correct facts on record, and thus, has erred in law in allowing the appeal.
7. Be that as it may, perusal of the report of the Collector Stamp reveals that without there being any evidence and material on record, the Collector Stamp presumed that 3.66 meters width road has been constructed only to show that the plot of the respondents is not on the national highway, and in fact it is not away from the national highway. This Court finds that the said finding of the Collector Stamp is not based upon any evidence on record.
8. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the petitioner cannot succeed inasmuch as the order passed by the Collector Stamp is without complying with Rule 7 (3) (C) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. In such view of the fact, this Court does not find any illegality committed by the appellate authority in allowing the appeal.
9. It is pertinent to note that the finding returned by the appellate authority is a finding of fact, inasmuch as the appellate authority after appreciating the evidence on record held that the plot of the respondents is situated on 3.66 meters width road. For this reason also, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the appellate authority.
10. Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 6.2.2024 NS