Allahabad High Court
Mehi Lal & 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy., Deptt. ... on 22 January, 2020
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 26 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 27328 of 2016 Petitioner :- Mehi Lal & 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aftab Ahmad,Aftab Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Sri Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1.7.2009 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda under Section 56 (1)-A of Indian Stamps Act whereby he has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of Stamp Collector/Additional Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Bahraich dated 25.11.2008.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioners and father of respondents No.2 and 3 on 28.9.2017 by one Ram Chandra son of Sri Ram Sufal pertaining to Gata No.1747 for an area of 0.081 hectare for a sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. The said sale deed was duly executed and registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Kaiserganj, District Bahraich on 28.9.2007 in the book No.2649 at page No.105 to 138 at serial No.8177. It has further been submitted that the said land is situated in Village Jarwal, Pargana Hisampur, Tehsil Kaiserganj, District Bahraich falling within the limits of Town Area Jarwal and is an agricultural land. As per the circle rate prevalent at the time of execution of sale deed the valuation of the land was Rs.1,92,000/- and requisite stamp fee of Rs.12960/- and Rs.3240/- as registration fee was paid and in furtherance of the same the sale deed was duly registered.
It has further been submitted that on the basis of the said sale deed the land was mutated in the revenue records in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, it appears that a complaint was made by one person against the petitioners alleging that nature of the land has been concealed by the petitioners with an intention to evade stamp duty. On the basis of the said complaint a spot inspection was done on 4.8.2008 by the Sub Registrar Kaiserganj, District Bahraich who submitted a report. A perusal of the said report dated 4.8.2008 indicates that the land in question is situated within Town Area and out of the -2- said land 0.040 hectare is of non-agricultural purposes and more specifically for housing purposes as two "Chhappars" were found on the said land and even a hand pump was installed; cattle were also found on the said plot and four trees were also reported. It was submitted that the petitioner has also not disclosed the number of trees and, thereafter, has suppressed the valuation of the said plot.
The petitioner was given a show cause notice and after submission of reply order dated 25.11.2008 was passed by Additional Collector (F & R), Bahraich. A perusal of the order dated 25.11.2008 indicates that the petitioner was heard but none of the contentions of the petitioners has been recorded and the Additional Collector (F & R) has relied only on the spot inspection report and made his assessment and imposed penalty on the petitioners.
The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, who decided the same by means of the order dated 1st July, 2009. Incidentally, the Additional Collector while deciding the case of the petitioner has relied upon the order of the first appellate authority as well as spot inspection report and not a single argument of the petitioner has been considered by him. He has recorded the contention of the petitioner that entire land is used for agricultural purposes and the valuation of the same was done after one year after execution of the sale deed, therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the spot inspection report. It has further been recorded that even on the said date agricultural activities was being carried out on the said land. A perusal of the order of Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda would reveal that he has not even dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner, therefore, the said order would be arbitrary and cannot be sustained.
The sole issue for determination which arises in this petition is whether the contentions raised by the parties were duly considered or not. It was incumbent upon the Additional Collector to have considered the issue raised by the petitioners in its proper perspective based on the material on record and thereafter give finding on the same and also to give reasons for the said findings. In absence of any findings in this regard, the order of Additional Collector cannot be sustained.
Non-consideration of the arguments of the petitioner by both the authorities below clearly demonstrates the infirmity in the -3- said orders. Needless to say that the judicial or quasi judicial determination has to be done following principles of natural justice. The opportunity of hearing would be rendered meaningless in case the arguments/grounds raised by the aggrieved person are not dealt with. I am of the considered opinion that both the impugned orders in this regard are illegal, arbitrary and clearly demonstrate lack of application of mind.
None of the authorities below have considered the contention of the petitioner that the spot inspection report cannot be relied upon as it states that housing activity commenced one year after the execution of sale deed. There is no finding with regard to the fact that the said land was being used for agricultural purposes even after execution of the sale deed.
In the light of the above, order dated 1.7.2009 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda under Section 56 (1)-A of Indian Stamps Act as well as order of Stamp Collector/Additional Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Bahraich dated 25.11.2008 is quashed.
The matter is hereby remanded to the District Magistrate to exercise his powers under Section 47 -A of the Indian Stamps Act to decide the matter afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order. It is expected that the District Magistrate shall decide the same within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
With aforesaid directions the petition is allowed.
It has been submitted by the petitioner that in terms of the interim order he has already deposited an amount of Rs.65,000/-. The said amount shall be subject to final orders to be passed by the District Magistrate under Section 47 of the Stamps Act.
Order Date :- 22.1.2020 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.