Allahabad High Court
Bijnore Engineering Private Limited vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 September, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153579 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16982 of 2023 Petitioner :- Bijnore Engineering Private Limited Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Yadav,Surendra Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the respondent no.2/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Agra in Case No.4194 of 2017 (Computerized Case No.D 201701104194) (State Vs. Bijnore Engineering Private Limited).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by way of registered sale deed dated 23.05.2012 the property in question was purchased. Thereafter, after lapse of the period prescribed under Section 47-A (3) of Indian Stamp Act i.e. four years, the proceeding has been initiated on the basis of a complaint being made. He further submits that the proceeding cannot be initiated on the basis of complaint made by an individual. He refers Section 47-A (3) of Indian Stamp Act and submits that the proceeding can be initiated only when the competent authorities refers the matter as mentioned in the said sub section. He next submits that in spite of the said fact being raised the impugned order has been passed. In alternative he submits that the plot in question was an agricultural land and is being used as an agricultural land but no weightage has been given to it.
4. He further submits that in the grounds of appeal, a specific plea has been made that there is no compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules framed under the Stamp Act, but without considering the same, the impugned orders have been passed.
5. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in Jagroop Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ C No. 20752/2015 decided on 15.07.2024], M/s Uttaranchal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCRA & Others [Writ C No. 12727/2012, decided on 06.03.2024] and Charan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others [Writ C No. 58674/2014, decided on 29.05.2024].
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order and submits that it is incorrect to state that the proceedings has wrongly been initiated against the petitioner as contemplated under Section 47-A (3) of Indian Stamp Act. He further submits that the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner after getting due sanction from the State Government.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.
8. It is not in dispute that the property was purchased in the year 2012 mentioning therein as an agricultural land and requisite stamp duty was paid thereof. The proceeding has been initiated on the basis of report dated 08.07.2021. The petitioner was never put to notice of the spot inspection required under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules framed under the Stamp Act.
9. This Court in Jagroop Singh (supra) has held that in absence of compliance of rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules, the impugned order cannot be justified. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:-
"7. It is admitted that the sale deed of the vacant plot was executed on 20.10.2012 in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of exparte report, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and in pursuance thereof notice was issued but the Collector has not visited the site in question in accordance with Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules. Even the respondent authority up to the stage of this Court could show any material in order to justify that prior to initiation of the proceedings, Section 7 (3) (c) of the Rules was complied with in letter and spirit.
8. This Court in the case of Ajay Agrawal (supra) has held as under:-
9. Nonetheless, in view of submissions advanced by learned State counsel, the question arising for determination would be whether compliance of Rule 7(3)(c) is required in proceedings under Section 47(A)(1) as well as under section 47 A(3) of the Act? Here it is also relevant to indicate that both the orders impugned in present writ petition are based only on the aforesaid spot inspection report, which admittedly was ex parte in nature.
...
14. It is quite discernible that the starting provision of Rule 7 itself indicates the applicability of the Rule to the extent that on receipt of a reference or where action is proposed to be taken suo motu under section 47 A the Collector shall issue notice to parties to the instrument to show-cause. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it evident that no distinction whatsoever has been carved out under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997 with regard to procedure being required to be followed under section 47 A. On the contrary, it specifically indicates that the aforesaid Rule is required to be followed even in case suo motu action is taken under section 47 A of the Act, which in effect pertains to Section 47 A(3) of the Act of 1899 with regard to determination of stamp duty after registration of a document of instrument of transfer. As such no such distinction having been carved out under Rule 7, it is not feasible to accede to the submissions of learned State counsel that Rule 7 (3)(c) of the Rules would not be applicable in case of proceeding under section 47 A( 3) of the Act.
...
20. In view of aforesaid, it is evident that the power to be exercised by Collector under section 47A (3) of the Act is not pedantic in nature but is required to be made on the basis of observations made hereinabove particularly with regard to the fact that he is required to apply his mind and record subjective satisfaction not only with regard to under valuation of the instrument of transfer but also to record a separate satisfaction regarding market value of the property and the duty payable thereupon and cannot place reliance only on the spot inspection report.
?.
22. Upon applicability of aforesaid in the present case, it is evident from a reading of the impugned orders that the same are based only on the spot inspection report and no subjective satisfaction at all has been recorded by the authority either under section 47 A or under section 56 of the Act as required to be done as per observation is made hereinabove.
9. Again this Court in the case of Satendra and another (supra) has held as under:-
11. On a pointed query being made to the learned Standing Counsel as to whether there was any further inquiry after the inquiry was initially held in the form of spot inspection, learned Standing Counsel could not point out either from the record or pleadings of the counter affidavit that any further inquiry was held as contemplated under the Rule 7 of the Rules.
12. This Court notices that after the notices were issued and the Collector had fixed date inviting objections, the Collector failed to fix any further date for spot inspection or for any further oral or documentary evidence and therefore, it cannot be said that the Collector at all undertook any effort to act in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the matter. The conclusion drawn therefore, is devoid of any cogent and convincing material in support there of and the findings therefore, are liable to be held as perverse. The said rule which has been quoted herein above, has also drawn attention of Full Bench in Smt. Pushpa Sarin v. State of U.P. 2015 (127) RD 855. However, the Full Bench did not delve into the issue any further regarding the scope and applicability of the Rules because the period which was in dispute under the reference was prior to the rule coming into force. Para 18 of the judgment of Full Bench runs as under:
"18. Subsequently, the provisions of the Stamp Rules in regard to valuation were replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 which have been made in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 27, 47-A and 75 of the Stamp Act. However, it is not necessary for the Court to express any view on the scheme or provisions of those rules since the period of dispute in the present reference is prior to the enforcement of those rules."
10. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.2.2015 and 20.8.2013 are hereby quashed."
10. In view of the above, matter requires reconsideration by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Agra. It would be appropriate that the matter is remanded back. Therefore, the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the respondent no.2/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Agra in Case No.4194 of 2017 (Computerized Case No.D 201701104194) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same is hereby quashed.
11. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
12. The matter is remanded to respondent no.2/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Agra to decide afresh after hearing the parties. The same may be decided by speaking and reasoned order taking note of all evidences, if adduced by the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to adduce all evidences and materials in support of his case.
13. The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of refund, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 20.9.2024 Atul