Allahabad High Court
Coral Landcon Pvt. Ltd. And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 8 August, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31395 of 2019 Petitioner :- Coral Landcon Pvt. Ltd. And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vatsala Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Ms. Vatsala learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.9.2019 passed by the CCRA, Meerut in Case No. 02440 of 2018 (Coral Landcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State). By that order, the appeal authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Collector, Meerut in Stamp Case No. 1592 of 2014 (State Vs. Coral Landcon Pvt. Ltd) instituted under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Thus, the deficiency of stamp Rs. 64,54, 880/- together with equal amount of penalty has been sustained.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Undisputedly, the petitioner had purchased 3.1010 Hectare of land bearing Khasra No. 51/2, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56M, 57M, 58, 61, 68M, 78 and 1015 at village Salarpur, Jalalpur in district Meerut for disclosed consideration Rs. 7,14,00,000/-, against Circle Rate for agricultural land set at Rs. 1,25,00,000/- per Hectare. The petitioner disclosed the purchase value at Rs. 7,14,00,000/- and paid stamp duty Rs. 50,04,050/-. After the deed was registered, an inspection was made by the Deputy Registrar who submitted his report dated 25.2.2014 disclosing adverse observations. On that, proceedings were initiated under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act by the Collector. While the proceedings remained pending, another inspection dated 30.9.2015 was conducted wherein it was again observed that development activities had been conducted. Acting on such material, the Collector passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2018. He concluded that the land in question was non-agricultural and valued the subject deed @ 5500 per Sq. Meter. He also valued the boundary wall constructed by the petitioner at Rs. 4,00,000/-. Accordingly, stamp deficiency was determined and penalty imposed. That has been confirmed in appeal.
Undisputedly, there is no declaration of the land to be non-agricultural. On the own showing of the revenue authorities, the same was located at about 200 meters from the nearest abadi. No development in the shape of plotting of land etc. had been found conducted at the time of either inspection dated 25.2.2014 and 30.9.2015. Merely because the petitioner may have got a boundary wall constructed to secure his possession, it did not lead to the conclusion that the land had been purchased for non-agricultural use. The reasoning given by the revenue authority and the appeal authority that such wall was not required to use the land for agricultural purpose, is only reflecting a perception. Whether the land is bounded by a boundary wall or not may not necessarily govern the use to which it may be put or its potentiality. The boundary fence or wall is only owner's expression to defend possession and to demarcate the land over which he may have title. It is also reflective of means and wisdom that a person may employ for that purpose. Though, it is true that mostly agriculturists do not erect boundary wall to secure their land, at the same time such erection does and cannot lead to the conclusion that the land would not have been used for agricultural purpose. The further conclusion drawn by the appeal authority that the petitioner may have purchased the land to create a land bank and that it would be a land mafia, for that reason is absurd, to say the least. What the appeal authority has completely forgotten to examine is the use and potentiality of the land. In absence of any evidence of land having been either put to non-agricultural use or of any material existing to establish potentiality of such non-agricultural use, plainly, the order determining stamp deficiency and imposing penalty are perverse.
The second inspection report may never have been examined as the same was conducted two years after the execution of the sale deed. Certain facts noted therein pertaining to development that may have taken place during that period, in the near vicinity would have no impact on the valuation of the subject sale deed on the date of its execution. What is pertinent in the second inspection report is, even on that date no development was found over the land purchased by the petitioner.
In view of the above, the orders dated 11.9.2019 and 14.11.2018 are quashed.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 8.8.2022 Faraz