# Anant Ram and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 390
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-03-01
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anant-ram-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42509
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art-226- Imposition
of penalty-deficiency of stamp duty-land in
question not declared-as non agricultural
purpose under section 143 of U.P. Z.A. of
Land Reform Act-but also can not denied
1 All] Anant Ram and another Vs. State of U.P.and others
391
the fact -the land being used for not
agricultural purpose for couple of years-no
intention to avoid stamp duty-in such
circumstances penalty-not justified.

Held: Para-12

The
authorities
below
have
imposed
penalty of Rs. 50,000/- in view of the fact
that the proper stamp duty was not paid
by the petitioners. There is no finding that
there was any intention on part of the
petitioners to evade payment of proper
stamp duty. The petitioners appear to have
acted bonafidely in assessing the market
value of the land as per its agricultural
nature as there was no declaration under
Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1993 SC 2585

## Text

390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
appellant was paid excess compensation
under the Act.

37. For what has been stated above
we hold that the order of the learned
Member of Board of Revenue directing
the action to be taken for refund of the
excess compensation was valid and
proper though he had no jurisdiction to
pass the order. In the event it is set aside it
would amount to reviving an invalid order
of payment of excess compensation to the
appellant."

33. The Apex Court in the said case
held that the order of the Board of
Revenue, even if, without jurisdiction
cannot
be
set
aside
since
the
consequences would be that there will a
revival of invalid order of payment of
excess compensation to the appellant. The
determination of compensation was made
under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. It
was held by the Apex Court that excess
payment was paid to the appellant and
payment of compensation was clearly
against the statute. Hence, the Apex Court
held that the order although without
jurisdiction
would
not
have
been
reviewed. Present is the case where it
cannot be said that the order of the
Commissioner earlier deciding the appeal
on 13.04.2012 was illegal or without
jurisdiction. Counsel for the respondent
no.4 contended that Commissioner has
wrongly interpreted the Government
Order dated 17th August 2002 and
applied the same. After referring the
Government Order the Commissioner has
taken one view of the matter,which
cannot be said to be without jurisdiction
or illegal. We make it clear that in this
writ petition since the order passed by the
Commissioner on 13.04.2012 has not
been challenged nor we are required to
express any opinion on the merits of the
said order, hence, we refrain ourselves in
expressing any opinion on correctness or
otherwise of the said order on merits.

34. We confine ourselves to the
issue that subsequent order of the
Commissioner reviewing the order being
without jurisdiction, all consequential
proceedings falls on the ground. We leave
it open to the respondent no.4 to question
the order dated 13.04.2012 in appropriate
proceedings.

35. With the above observations, the
writ petition is allowed.

36. The order dated 28.12.2012
passed on the review application by the
respondent
no.2
as
well
as
the
consequential order dated 12.02.2013
passed by the respondent no.3 are set
aside.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11075 Of 2013

Anant Ram and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art-226- Imposition
of penalty-deficiency of stamp duty-land in
question not declared-as non agricultural
purpose under section 143 of U.P. Z.A. of
Land Reform Act-but also can not denied
1 All] Anant Ram and another Vs. State of U.P.and others
391
the fact -the land being used for not
agricultural purpose for couple of years-no
intention to avoid stamp duty-in such
circumstances penalty-not justified.

Held: Para-12

The
authorities
below
have
imposed
penalty of Rs. 50,000/- in view of the fact
that the proper stamp duty was not paid
by the petitioners. There is no finding that
there was any intention on part of the
petitioners to evade payment of proper
stamp duty. The petitioners appear to have
acted bonafidely in assessing the market
value of the land as per its agricultural
nature as there was no declaration under
Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1993 SC 2585

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J)

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Petitioners have purchased part of
land of gata no. 614 vide instrument of
sale no. 1203 of 2008 dated 16.4.2008.

3. Petitioners valued the aforesaid
land as an agricultural land and paid
stamp duty accordingly. The authorities
by the impugned order dated 23.3.2012
and the appellate order thereto dated
21.1.2013 have held the aforesaid land to
be of residential use and have thus applied
the residential rate in determining its
market value and the deficiency in stamp
duty.

4. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the land is
actually agricultural in nature and its market
value is not liable to be determined by
treating it to be residential land.

5. The record reveals part of the
same gata was sold by its owner earlier
describing the land to be residential in
nature and stamp duty at that time was
paid according to the rates applicable to
the residential land.

6. The land has not been declared to
be non agriculture under Section 143 of
the U.P.Z.A and LR Act but as there is no
bar in law in using it for other purposes
rather Section 142 of the Act permits use
of agricultural land for non-agricultural
purposes also in the absence of material
evidence to show that the land was under
actual cultivation, the finding with regard
to nature of the land recorded by the
authorities is difficult to be disturbed.

7. In Smt. Sarifabibi Mohammad
Ibrahim and others Vs. Commissioner
of Income Tax, Gujrat AIR 1993 SC
2585 it was observed that whether the
land is an agricultural land or not is
essentially a question of fact and this
question has to be answered having regard
to the facts and circumstances of each
case and where a land has not been
cultivated for a period of years coupled
with its location it is difficult to recognize
it as an agricultural land.

8. In view of the above, the finding
recorded by the authorities regarding nature
of the land depending upon its location is
not open for interference.

9. The minimum rates notified by the
Collector for the different categories of land
of the various localities are not shown to be
on the higher side or excessive.

10. Accordingly, there is no illegality
in applying the minimum rates notified for
determining the market value of the
residential land in the area.
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
order impugned does not require any
interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

12. The authorities below have
imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- in view
of the fact that the proper stamp duty was
not paid by the petitioners. There is no
finding that there was any intention on
part of the petitioners to evade payment of
proper stamp duty. The petitioners appear
to have acted bonafidely in assessing the
market value of the land as per its
agricultural nature as there was no
declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.
Z.A. and LR Act.

13. In these circumstances, the
imposition of penalty is not justified and
the same is deleted.

14. The writ petition is dismissed
modifying the impugned order by deleting
the penalty imposed.
---------

 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11739
Of 2012

Rajendra Nishad

 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Siddharth Shukla, Sri I.K. Chaturvedi
Sri Pramod Kumar Sahni

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.,Sri A.K. Rai
Sri P.K. Srivastava, Sri Manish Tiwari

Code of Criminal Procedure.- 439-Grant
of Bail-seeking parity of co-accusedoffence
under
section
147/148/149/302/307/506 IPC- other
co-accused
granted
bail
without
disclosing conviction for murder and
attempt to murder-in view of provisions
of 437(ii) Cr.P.C.-not entitled for bail.

Held: Para-23

Having
considered
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case as also the
legal analogy the applicant who stood
convicted on two counts for the offences
like murder and attempt to murder can
not be allowed to be released on bail

Case Law discussed:
1993(3) ACC,281; 2001(2) JIC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Virendra Vikram
Singh, J)

1. Rajendra Nishad, the accused
facing trial for offence bearing Crime
No.958
of
2010
under
Section
147/148/149/302/307/506 I.P.C., Police
Station ,Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur,
has applied for his release on bail.

2. The prosecution version is that on
28.11.2010, at 4 O'clock in the evening,
while the complainant Ram Niwas along
with his cousin Raja Ram, Kanhaiya and
Sonu were coming back to their houses,
that on their way, they were intercepted
by seven accused, nominated in the F.I.R.
including
the
applicant.
On
being
exhorted, Nav Ratan fired upon Raja
Ram. Ramesh, Narsingh and the present
applicant indiscriminately fired with the
fire arms, they had, and caused injuries to
Kanhaiya and Sonu. Raja Ram was
brought to Gorakhpur District Hospital,