Allahabad High Court
T.C.W. Reality Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 21 September, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:154173 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35052 of 2018 Petitioner :- T.C.W. Reality Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Pandey,Rama Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned orders dated 25.06.2018 & 31.08.2017 passed by respondent nos.2 and 3 respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed No. 2160 of 2016, the petitioner purchased the agricultural land after paying requisite stamp duty in accordance with the prevalent circle rate. He further submits that on the basis of an spot inspection report dated 17.06.2016, proceedings under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act were initiated and notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his objection, making categorical assertion therein that there is no abadi on all the four sides of the land forming subject matter of the sale deed in question. Thereafter, pursuant to the objection filed by the petitioner, fresh report was called for from Up-Ziladhikari, Chail, who after inspection, submitted a report stating the land in dispute had been used for agricultural purposes. However, in the said report was exclaimed that the petitioner, being a company, has a planning to sell the land after extending plotting. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 31.08.2017, deficiency of stamp duty amounting to Rs.11,96,900/- along with penalty of equal amount and interest @ 1.5% per month has been imposed against the petitioner. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.06.2018. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the plot in question was an agricultural land and the time of purchase of the same, the land was not declared as an Abadi land under Section 143 of UPZA & L.R. Act, the said fact was taken in the objection, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.5 at serial nos. 5 & 6, annexed at Page No.86 to this writ petition. He further submits that the said point was noticed by the authorities, but no finding has been recorded with regard to the same. He next submits that the said fact has also been mentioned in para nos. 32, 33 & 34 of the instant writ petition, but the same has not specifically been denied in the counter affidavit.
5. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgements 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 A.C.S.C. supports the impugned orders and submits that the petitioner being a company, after purchase of the land in question, has a planning to sell the land after extending plotting, which itself is explanatory and therefore, the impugned orders have rightly been passed.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.
8. It is not in dispute that the the petitioner has declared to have purchased the agricultural land at the time of execution of sale deed dated 28.05.2016. It is also not in dispute that in the objection filed by the petitioner at serial no.3, the petitioner has specifically taken the ground of non-declaration of land in question as an abadi land, as required under Section 143 of UPZA & LR Act.This fact was also raised in the writ petition in para nos. 32, 33 & 34, but the same has not specifically been denied in the counter affidavit.
9. This Court in Raj Kumar (supra) has held that at the time of execution of sale deed, land has not been declared as an abadi under Section 143 of UPZA & LR Act, the land cannot be treated as an abadi land. Since no finding has been recorded by any of the authorities, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed.
10. In view of the above stated fact, the matter requires reconsideration by the first appellate authority/respondent no.3.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned/ respondent no. 3 for deciding afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing all the stakeholder, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
12. Any amount deposited by the petitioner during the present litigation, shall be subject to the fresh order to be passed by the respondent no.3.
Order Date :- 21.9.2024 Pravesh Mishra