Allahabad High Court
D.C.M. Shriram Consolidation Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 9 April, 2025
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51339 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31008 of 2010 Petitioner :- D.C.M. Shriram Consolidation Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar,Tarun Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.02.2010 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Maharajganj.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased an agricultural land vide registered sale deed dated 29.08.2006 after paying the requisite stamp duty thereof. Thereafter, on the basis of an ex-parte report, proceeding under the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and a notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner has submitted his reply/objection. In the objection, specific ground was taken that the land in question is registered under the revenue act as an agricultural land and no proceedings under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act has been undertaken. However, not being satisfied from the objection/reply of the same, the impugned order has been passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Maharajganj holding the deficiency of stamp duty. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order.
4. He further submits that the specific grounds were taken in the objection filed to the show cause notice as well as before this Court that the land in question has not been declared as an abadi land under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act as until and unless the nature of land is changed as abadi land, the same cannot be determined otherwise.
5. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Writ- C No. 19644 of 2016 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others).
6. Per contra, learned Counsel supports the impugned orders.
7. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.
8. It is not in dispute that the land in question has been shown to be purchased as an agricultural land after paying the requisite stamp duty thereof. After its purchase, no material has been brought on record showing that the nature of land has been changed from agricultural to abadi land in the revenue record under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act.
9. Further, the record shows that though the specific grounds have been taken by the petitioner at every stage that the land in question has not been changed as abadi land under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act, however, the same has not been considered by the authorities.
10. The issue in hand is no longer res-integra as this Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) has held that until and unless the use of land is not changed as an abadi land under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act, proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be initiated. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement is quoted as below:-
"16. In view of the definition of land contained in the law relating to land tenures, i.e. U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, the fact that the land was not declared as Abadi under section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 as explained under section 3(14) of the said Act, in itself becomes a relevant factor for determining the nature of land that was subject matter of instrument. This Court in various authorities has held that when the land is purchased for agricultural purposes and declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act, 1950 has not been made and merely because the land is situated in close vicinity of the non-agricultural land, the same would not loose its character as the agricultural land for the purposes of levy of stamp duty. Reference can be made to few authorities of this Court in the case of Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad and another, reported in 2000 (3) AWC 2587; Smt. Sushila Verma vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2006 (2) AWC 1492 and Sudama vs Chief Controlling Authority and others, reported in 2013 (4) AWC 3571.
xxx
20. Insofar as the imposing four times penalty is concerned, it is well settled that unless "mens rea" is established on the part of the purchaser, no penalty can be imposed, even if the provision of penalty is a creation of statute. Regarding imposition of penalty, reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Asha Kapoor vs Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad and others, reported in 2008 (72) ALR 125, where this Court has held that penalty can be imposed if there is an attempt to evade the stamp duty and penalty presupposes culpability and an intention to conceal or to play fraud with the authorities. I do not find any finding on record, whereunder any opinion has been formed by the respondent-Authorities that the petitioner defrauded the Government having mens rea at the time of getting the sale deed executed. Even the annexures to the writ petition disclosing the nature of land have not been disputed by the State in the counter affidavit. I also find that the sale deed in question conforms to the statutory requirements of disclosure of necessary particulars as per rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules of 1997. Therefore, imposition of penalty is also contrary to law of the land."
11. In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
13. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be refunded to him along with interest @ 4% per annum, within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Pravesh Mishra