Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 February, 2025
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23206 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32047 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurang Kulshreshtha,Prem Sagar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the respondent no.4 and the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by respondent no.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Instrument No.3162/2021, dated 16.03.2021, the petitioner purchased a residential plot, after paying the requisite stamp duty as well as 25% additional stamp duty was paid being the plot in question adjoining to road. Thereafter, vide reference dated 04.05.2021 made by Sub-Registrar, Sikohabad, respondent no.4 issued a notice to the petitioner on 04.08.2021 to which the petitioner filed his objection, but not being satisfied with the objection/reply, respondent no.4 passed the impugned order on 08.09.2022 holding that there is deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 11,83,000/- along with interest @ 1.5 % per month from the date of execution of the instrument to till its deposit, penalty to the tune of Rs.5,90,000/- and deficiency in registration fee amounting to Rs.1,69,080/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no.3, which was dismissed. Hence the present writ petition.
4. He further submits that a residential plot was purchased and as the same being adjacent to the road, 25% additional stamp duty was paid, but on the basis of an ex-parte report, proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner in violation of provision contemplated in the Indian Stamp Act regarding visit of the plot in question in presence of the petitioner and therefore, the said proceedings initiated against the petitioner ex-parte by which the plot of the petitioner has been treated to be commercial plot, are bad.
5. He further submits that the proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioner until and unless the nature of land is changed by the State Government from residential to commercial. He next submits that the authorities have failed to bring on record any material to show that the nature of the land has been changed i.e. from residential to commercial by passing an appropriate order.
6. He further submits that the specific grounds were raised, but the same have not been considered by the authorities at any stage.
7. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Indo Continental Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ-C No. 51205 of 2010).
8. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.
9. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.
10. It is not in dispute that the land in question was declared in the instrument as a residential land and the same being adjacent to the road, 25% additional stamp duty was paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, on the basis of an ex-parte report, the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act were initiated holding that the commercial activity were being undertaken in the vicinity of the plot in question.
11. The record shows that no material has been brought on record by the authority at any stage or before this Court showing that the nature of land has been changed from residential to commercial.
12. The record further shows that no appropriate order has been passed by the competent authority converting the land in question from residential to commercial.
13. This Court in the case of Indo Continental Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in para nos. 22 & 23 has under:-
"22. In view of aforesaid law laid down, it is clear that deficiency of stamp can neither be determined on the value of future use of the property nor it can be levied on the ground that property can fetch good market value nor in the absence of any declaration made by the State Government changing the nature of the land from industrial to commercial. The judgement referred by the counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates for determination the stamp duty only on the date of execution of deed.
23. The case in hand, the property in question was purchased as vacant industrial plot and no material has been brought on record to treat the same as commercial plot. The authorities below have failed to bring on record that nature of the land in question has been changed by passing appropriate order under the relevant Act converting its use from industrial to commercial. In view of above facts as well as law laid down as aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law."
14. Further, it has specifically been mentioned in the instant writ petition that the land in question is still vacant and the same has not been put to use as a commercial land and the said fact has not been denied by the State in the counter affidavit.
15. In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the matter requires reconsideration.
16. Accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed.
17. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 4 for deciding afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing all the stakeholder, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
18. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be subject to the fresh order to be passed by the respondent no.4.
Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Pravesh Mishra