Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 August, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130265 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29970 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sanjay Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Shankar,Triveni Shanker Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the respondent no.2 as well as order dated 15.03.2021 passed by respondent no.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide registered Sale-deed dated 17.08.2019, an agricultural land was purchased. He further submits that after the purchase of land, the same was being used as an agricultural land. Thereafter, on the basis of an ex-parte report dated 24.09.2019, in which it has been alleged that some go-down is under construction over the property in question and there is P.P.S. School across the road as well as some foundation has been found, the proceedings under Section 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner to which the petitioner filed his objection, making request for a fresh inspection. On the request of the petitioner, a fresh spot inspection was made on 23.07.2020, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition. He further submits that in the report, it has specifically been mentioned that at the time of survey, the standing crop were there and the plot in question is still put to use as an agricultural land. Further, the other facts have also been mentioned, but without noticing the said fact, the impugned order has been passed holding the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.5,34,220/- as well imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,33,555/- along with interest @ 1.5% per month from the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 16.08.2019 till the date of deposit, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the respondent no.2, but without considering the material available on record, the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2021.
4. He further submits that once the land in question has not been declared as an abadi land, the agricultural land cannot be treated as non-agricultural.
5. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No.20500 of 2009 (Smt. Pooja Singhal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others).
6. He further submits that at the time of survey dated 23.07.2020, standing crops were found there and therefore, in absence of any contrary material, the impugned orders cannot be justified in the eyes of law.
7. Further, in support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court at Lucknow Bench passed in Misc. Single No. 20756 of 2020 (Sunil Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) as well as upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Additional Commissioner, Revenue Vs. Akhlaq Hussain and Another, (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 507.
8. He further submits that the authorities have drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner holding that the potential of the land is otherwise, showing the vicinity, which may not be justified.
9. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Institute of the Franciscan Clarist Sisters Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2020 (3) ADJ 514.
10. He further submits that no exemplar has been submitted by the authorities for deriving for deficiency of stamp duty, therefore, in absence of the same, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioners.
11. Further, in support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court at Lucknow Bench passed in the case of Mohd. Islam Vs. State of U.P. through Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others, 2020 (148) RD 134.
12. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.
13. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.
14. It is not in dispute that the land in question was purchased as an agricultural land by way of aforesaid sale deed, but thereafter, on the basis of an ex-parte report, proceedings were triggered against the petitioners. Thereafter, on the request of the petitioners, another survey was conducted on 23.07.2020, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to this petition, wherein it has also been mentioned that over the land in question, the standing crops were found at the time of inspection. Once at the time of inspection, which was made almost after 11 months, no cogent material has been brought on record, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioners.
15. In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
17. Any amount deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be refunded to him within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Pravesh Mishra