Allahabad High Court
Deo Prakash Maurya vs State Of U.P. And Others on 14 September, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 3123
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23502 of 2012 Petitioner :- Deo Prakash Maurya Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.S. Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Shankar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.06.2011 passed by the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra, determining the stamp liability of the petitioner on the instrument in issue as well as the order dated 22.03.2012 passed by the learned appellate authority/Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, affirming the order of the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra.
The learned adjudicating authority/ District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra in the impugned order dated 21.06.2011 has placed exclusive reliance on a report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Sonebhadra, after the inspection of the disputed premises. The report dated 30.09.2009 was submitted in the aftermath of the sale-deed. The sale-deed was executed on 20.04.2009. The petitioner had tendered his objection to the aforesaid inspection report. While finding against the petitioner, the adjudicating authority held that insufficient evidence was adduced by the petitioner against the offending report. On this footing, the findings of the report dated 30.09.2009 of the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Sonebhadra in regard to the valuation of the property was upheld. The objection of the petitioner that the constructions were raised and the crushing operations begun subsequent to the date of purchase was accordingly invalidated.
The learned appellate authority/Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, agreed with the findings of the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/ District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra, and affirmed its order by the impugned order dated 22.03.2012.
Sri Kamal Shankar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned authorities below erred in law by relying on the report submitted by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Sonebhadra dated 30.09.2009. The learned authorities below illegally failed to make an enquiry under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. The reliance is placed on the law laid down by this Court in Ram Khelawan Alias Bachcha son of Ram Ratan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Collector and Prashant Shukla son of Sushil Chand Shukla, reported at 2005 (2) AWC 1087.
The applicability of the law laid down by this Court in Ram Khelawan (supra) could not be disputed on behalf of the State.
Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the applicability of Ram Khelawan (supra) to the facts of this case.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below discloses that sole and exclusive reliance was placed on the report submitted by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Sonebhadra on 30.09.2009 while finding against the petitioner.
The intendment of such inspection report is only to assist the adjudicating authority to record a prima facie satisfaction on the correctness of the valuation of the property as disclosed in the instrument. The said report merely becomes the basis of initiating proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Once the report is disputed by the noticee, the stamp authorities cannot place reliance on the same to determine stamp liability. The adjudicating authority will have to make an independent enquiry as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 to determine the valuation of the property and on that basis assess the stamp liability payable on the instrument.
This narrative is supported by good authority in point. In Ram Khelawan (supra), this Court while construing the purpose of the inspection report [Such as one made by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) in this case], held as under:
"25. It has been found in several cases like the present one that the entire basis of determination of market value for the purpose of stamp duty is ex-parte report of Tehsildar or other officer. Ex-parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of Stamp Act. However, for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report. After initiation of the case inspection is to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule-7(3) (c) of the Rules of 1997. Moreover in the inspection report distance of the property from other residential or commercial properties and road must be shown and wherever possible sketch map must also be annexed alongwith the report so that correct valuation may be ascertained with reasonable certainity."
The proposition of law is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. On this footing alone, the orders passed by the learned authorities below are vitiated.
There is another aspect to the matter. Upon receipt of the report the District Magistrate/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra, is under an obligation of law to carry out an independent enquiry to determine the valuation of the property and the property comprised in the instrument and then determine the stamp liability. A comprehensive procedure in that regard is set out in Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. The said provision is being extracted hereunder for ease of reference:
"7. Procedure on receipt of a reference or when suo motu action is proposed under Section 47-A.-(1) 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 within thirty days of the receipt of such notice as to why the market value of the property set forth in the instrument and the duty payable thereon be not determined by him.
(2) The Collector may admit oral or documentary evidence, if any, produced by the parties to the instrument and call for and examine the original instrument to satisfy himself as to the correctness of the market value of the subject-matter of the instrument and for determining the duty payable thereon.
(3) The Collector may-
(a) Call for any information or record from any public office, officer or authority under the Government or a local authority;
(b) Example and record the statement of any public officer or authority under the Government or the local authority; and
(c) Inspect the property after due notice to parties to the instrument.
(4) After considering the representation of the parties, if any and examining the records and other evidence, the Collector shall determine the market value of the subject-matter of the instrument and the duty payable thereon.
(5) If, as a result of such inquiry, the market value is found to be fully and truly set forth and the instrument duly stamped according to such value, it shall be returned to the person who made the reference with a certificate to that effect. A copy of such certificate shall also be sent to the Registering Officer concerned.
(6) If, as a result of inquiry, the instrument is found to be under valued and not duly stamped, necessary action shall be taken in respect of it according to relevant provisions of the Act."
The District Magistrate/Collector (Stamps), Sonebhadra has failed to cause an enquiry in the manner prescribed under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 to determine the valuation of the property. It is beyond the pale of dispute that the District Magistrate/Collector (Stamps), Sonebhadra has evidently fettered his jurisdiction for no good cause.
The learned appellate authority/Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur in its order dated 22.03.2012 failed to redeem the error committed by the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra.
In wake of the preceding narrative, the order dated 21.06.2011 passed by the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamps), Sonebhadra as well as the order dated 22.03.2012 passed by the learned appellate authority/Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, are liable to be set aside and are set aside.
The matter is remitted to the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamps), Sonebhadra, with the following directions:
I. The learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamps), Sonebhadra, shall decide the matter afresh, consistent with the manner stated in this judgement.
II. The controversy shall be adjudicated by the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamps), Sonebhadra, within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad. The Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
III. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the enquiries before the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamps), Sonebhadra, and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.
IV. If necessary, the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra, shall conduct the proceedings on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of three months is strictly adhered to.
V. The amount already deposited by the petitioner shall remain subject to the final adjudication by the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamps), Sonebhadra in accordance with the above directions.
Before parting, this Court deems it appropriate to highlight another important issue. The law laid down by this Court in Ram Khelawan (supra) is now well settled. This Court in several cases had noticed the stamp authorities had been erring by relying an ex parte inspection reports which are to be used solely for the purposes of initiation of proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The authorities are not any the wiser today. This Court also comes to the conclusion independently that the same error is being repeated by the authorities in several cases including the instant case. This aspect needs to be redressed.
The Principal Secretary, Stamp and Registration, Government of U.P., Lucknow, shall ensure that appropriate training programmes and workshops/seminars for the adjudicating authorities as well as appellate authorities are regularly held to enable them to acquire knowledge of the laws including the body of judicial precedents which govern the interpretation of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The distilled wisdom of the judgements handed down by constitutional courts should constantly guide the actions of the revenue authorities.
Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to the Principal Secretary, Stamp and Registration, Government of U.P., Lucknow, along with his suggestions.
The Principal Secretary, Stamp and Registration, Government of U.P., Lucknow is expected to take appropriate measures in this regard within a period of four months from today.
Such regular workshops will help the authorities to remain abreast of the laws and empower them to faithfully implement the intendment of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and protect the interests of the Revenue while respecting the rights of common citizens. It will also prevent unnecessary litigation.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 14.9.2021/Ashish Tripathi