# Anil Kumar Gupta @ Rajendra Gupta & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1499
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-20
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 45294 of 2010
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-gupta-rajendra-gupta-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50127
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Laws - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226 - Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections
47, 47-A, 47(a)(3), 47-A/33, 48-A, 56(1A) & 56(2) - UP Stamp Valuation of
Property Rules, 1997- Rule 7, 7(2)(c),
7(3)(C) - Sale deed of an agricultural land -
notice for deficiency in Stamp duty while
accepting a complaint that, agricultural plot was
purchased but with two storied house, valuation
of which was not included - recovery citation -
Appeal - with a specific plea that no any
independent
inquiry
or
inspection
was
conducted before issuing impugned recovery
order - appeal rejected - writ petition -
undoubtedly,
as
recorded
in
order
of
Commissioner himself such a request was made
by the petitioner in appeal preferred by him -
When such a request is made then, it is
mandatory
upon
authorities
concerned
to
exercise powers conferred under Section 7(3)(c)
of Rules and inspect property after giving due
notice to parties and only then proceed with
matter - in case aforesaid exercise has not been
conducted valuable right vested in person who
is put under notice is lost and valuable right
cannot be exercised by him and procedure as
prescribed is required to be followed in letter
and spirit - and not inspecting property even
after application made by petitioner is clearly
arbitrary and illegal - hence, mater is remitted
back to the Additional District Magistrate who
shall proceed in the matter afresh in accordance
with law - direction issued - accordingly, writ
petition is allowed. (Para - 13, 15, 16)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Anil Kumar Gupta @ Rajendra Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1499

(iii). It is provided that till the
order is passed by the Electrical Inspector,
no recovery shall be made from the
petitioner in pursuance of the bills dated
05.06.1985 and 07.06.1985.

(iv). This protection shall be
available only till passing of an appropriate
order by the Electrical Inspector as directed
by this Court.

17. In light of the aforesaid direction,
the writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1499
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 45294 of 2010

Anil Kumar Gupta @ Rajendra Gupta &
Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.K. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Laws - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226 - Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections
47, 47-A, 47(a)(3), 47-A/33, 48-A, 56(1A) & 56(2) - UP Stamp Valuation of
Property Rules, 1997- Rule 7, 7(2)(c),
7(3)(C) - Sale deed of an agricultural land -
notice for deficiency in Stamp duty while
accepting a complaint that, agricultural plot was
purchased but with two storied house, valuation
of which was not included - recovery citation -
Appeal - with a specific plea that no any
independent
inquiry
or
inspection
was
conducted before issuing impugned recovery
order - appeal rejected - writ petition -
undoubtedly,
as
recorded
in
order
of
Commissioner himself such a request was made
by the petitioner in appeal preferred by him -
When such a request is made then, it is
mandatory
upon
authorities
concerned
to
exercise powers conferred under Section 7(3)(c)
of Rules and inspect property after giving due
notice to parties and only then proceed with
matter - in case aforesaid exercise has not been
conducted valuable right vested in person who
is put under notice is lost and valuable right
cannot be exercised by him and procedure as
prescribed is required to be followed in letter
and spirit - and not inspecting property even
after application made by petitioner is clearly
arbitrary and illegal - hence, mater is remitted
back to the Additional District Magistrate who
shall proceed in the matter afresh in accordance
with law - direction issued - accordingly, writ
petition is allowed. (Para - 13, 15, 16)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Wasi Ur Rehman & anr. Vs Commissioner
Moradabad Division & ors., (writ - C No. 47533
of 2010 decide don dated 26.2.2015),

2. Chiranji Lal (Dr.) Vs Hari Das (2005) 10 SCC
746,

3.
Ramesh
Chand
Bansal
Vs
District
Magistrate/Collector, 4(1999) 5 SCC 62,

4. Agra City Real St. Development Organisation,
Agra Vs St. of U.P & ors.) 2003 (2) SAC 361,

5. Vijay Kumar & anr. Vs Commissioner, 2008(3)
AWC 299 All.,

6. Ratna Shankar Dwivedi Vs St. of U.P., AIR
2012 ALL 100,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri R. K. Gupta, learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned Standing counsel for respondent
No.s 1 to 4.
1500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. The petitioner has challenged the
order dated 5.3.2008 passed by Assistant
Stamp Commissioner/ Collector, Stamp,
Fatehpur as well as the order dated
30.11.2009
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner (Administration), Allahabad
Divisions, Allahabad thereby dismissing
the appeal preferred by the petitioner under
Section 56 (1-A)of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899.
He
has
also
challenged
the
consequential orders wherein recovery
citation dated 26.7.2010 has been issued for
realization of the deficient stamp duty.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of
the petitioner that respondent No.5 had sold
a land measuring 0.0405 square meters of
gata No.863 through registered sale deed
dated 21st February, 2007 and he has
further paid the sufficient court fee on
consideration which was agreed between
the parties as mentioned in the sale deed.
Assistant Stamp Commissioner / Collector
Stamp Duty issued notice to the petitioner
after registering a case on the ground that
the petitioner had not paid adequate stamp
duty for registration of the said plot and
notices were issued as to why the deficit
amount be
not
recovered
from
the
petitioner. The petitioner had responded to
the said notice and submitted his reply to
the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar,
Fatehpur.

4. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has purchased the agricultural
land standing in the name of Phool Singh
and proceedings have been initiated on the
basis of a false complaint at the behest of
one Ram Sajiwan. He further submits that
adequate consideration of stamp duty has
been paid and, hence, prayed that the notice
issued
to
him
may
be
discharged.
Additional District Magistrate (Finance and
Revenue) considered the response of the
petitioner rejected his defence and upheld
the fact that the petitioner had not paid
adequate consideration of stamp duty. He
took into account the fact that according to
the sale deed the agricultural plot was
purchased but on the spot two storied house
was existing the valuation of which was not
included in the sale deed and accordingly
there was deficiency in the stamp duty paid
by the petitioner.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by
the order dated 5.3.2008 passed by
Additional District Magistrate (F & R),
Fatehpur preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner, Allahabad under Section
56(2)
of
the
Stamp
Act.
The
Commissioner also did not find any merit
in the plea taken by the petitioner and
affirmed the order of Additional District
Magistrate (F & R), Fatehpur by dismissing
the appeal by means of order dated
30.11.2009.

6. Assailing both the orders of the
authorities
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has submitted that both the
authorities concerned have not followed the
procedure established under Section 47-A
of U.P. Stamp Act as well as Uttar Pradesh
Stamp (Valuation of Properties), Rules,
1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of
1997). He submits that entire proceedings
were initiated only on the basis of a
complaint made by one Ram Sajiwan and
without ascertaining any of the facts the
respondents have proceeded on the ground
that a two story house was existing on the
plot purchased by the petitioner and
consequently there was deficiency in the
court fee. He has further submitted that the
petitioner had requested the respondents to
inspect the property after due notice to the
parties in exercise of the powers under
Section 7(2) (c) of the Rules of 1997 but no
5 All. Anil Kumar Gupta @ Rajendra Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1501
such inspection was conducted and the
respondents
proceeded
to
reject
the
contention of the petitioner and upheld the
deficiency in stamp fee in the said
instrument sought to be registered by the
petitioner. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that he had taken specific plea
before the Commissioner in his appeal
where this aspect of the matter has been
duly recorded by him that the petitioner has
sought an independent inquiry /inspection
of the said plot and only then the appellate
authority should proceed in the matter.
Without considering the pleas raised by the
petitioner the Commissioner proceeded to
uphold the order of Additional District
Magistrate
(F
&
R),
Fatehpur
and
misconducted himself and has proceeded
contrary to the procedure prescribed under
the Rules of 1997.

7. Learned Standing counsel, on the
other hand, has opposed the writ petition.
He submits that there is no infirmity in the
orders passed by the authorities concerned.
He has further submitted that there is no
dispute with regard to the fact that a two
story building was existing on the plot
purchased by the petitioner which was not
disclosed in the sale deed and consequently
when the same was noticed by the
authorities concerned the petitioner was put
under notice and proceedings were initiated
and concluded strictly in accordance with
the provisions under Section 48 (A) of the
Stamps Act and, hence, supported the order
passed by the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
while assailing the assessment order as well
as the appellate order passed under Section
47 A of the Stamp Act and has submitted
that no inspection was ever made at the
property and that in case the inspection
would have been made in presence of the
petitioner he would have been in a position
to demonstrate that there was no building
existing on the plot purchased by him and
in this regard he submits that the
respondents have proceeded in violation of
the procedure prescribed under the Rules of
1997. Rule 7 ( C) of the Rules of 1997
provides the procedure on receipt of a
reference or when suo motu action is
proposed under Section 47-A of the Stamp
Act. The Rule 7(2) (c) provides that the
Collector may inspect the property after
due notice to parties to the instrument.

9. The object of the Act is to collect
proper stamp duty on an instrument or
conveyance. An obligation is cast on the
authorities to properly ascertain its true
value. The market value of a property may
vary from village to village, from location
to location and even may differ from the
sizes of land area and other relevant factors
viz. predominant land-use. Entry in revenue
record though relevant is not the sole
determining factor of the market value
under the Act. This apart there has to be
some material before the authority as to
what is the likely value of such property in
that area. Such 'reason to believe' must be
based on tangible, relevant and legally
admissible evidence. There must be an
intelligible nexus between the 'reason' and
the 'belief'. Such belief should not be
substitute for roving enquiries or the
authorities 'reason to suspect'.

10. In the light of the above
objections raised by the petitioner it was
necessary for the Collector to exercise the
powers under Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules of
1997 and conducted spot inspection in
presence of the petitioner and there upon
proceeded under Section 47 A to assess the
valuation of the land.
1502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. This Court in WRIT - C No. -
47533 of 2010 (Wasi Ur Rehman And
Another Vs. Commissioner Moradabad
Division
And
Others)
decided
on
26.2.2015 has held as under:-

"The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is a
law
relating
to
revenue/stamps.
Its
applicability thus stands restricted to the
scheme of the Act. The Stamp Act is a fiscal
measure enacted with an object to secure
revenue for the State on certain classes of
instrument.

It is not enacted to arm a litigant
with a weapon of technicality to defect the
case of the Revenue. The stringent
provisions of the Act are conceived in the
interest of the Revenue.

It is a matter of common
knowledge that in order to escape such
duty by unfair practice, many a time under
valuation
of
a
property
or
lower
consideration is mentioned in a sale
deed.(Chiranji Lal (Dr.) v. Hari Das
(2005) 10 SCC 746; Ramesh Chand
Bansal
versus
District
Magistrate/Collector, 4(1999) 5 SCC 62. A
Stamp Act is a taxing statute and as
regards a taxing statute , it is well settled
that equity has no place in it. There is no
presumption as to a tax, nothing is to be
read in, nothing is to be implied, (Agra
City
Real
State
Development
Organisation,Agra versus State of U.P &
others) 2003 (2) SAC 361.

Market value has not been
defined under the Act, in proceedings under
section 47-A (3) refers "to instrument on
which duty is chargeable on the market
value of the property", Article 23\provides
for stamp duty payable on conveyance
which refers to market value of immovable
property
which
is
subject
of
such
conveyance.

Market value as referred to in the
expression conveyance is the price which a
willing purchaser would pay to a willing
seller for the property. The court in Vijay
Kumar
and
another
Versus
Commissioner, 2008(3) AWC 299 All,
explained the expression "market value":

"The 'market value' means what a
willing purchaser would pay to a willing
seller for the property having regard to the
advantages available to the land and the
development activities which may be going
in the vicinity and potentiality of the land."

Again in Ratna Shankar Dwivedi
versus State of U.P., AIR 2012 ALL 100
the Court held that:

"The term "market value" has not
been defined under the Act. However there
are some precedents laying down certain
guidelines as to how and in what manner a
market value would be determined. The
consensus opinion is that the market value
of any property is the price which the
property would fetch or would have fetched
if sold in the open market."

The sine qua non for invoking
provisions of Section 47-A (3) of the Act is
that the Collector had reason to believe,
that the value had not been properly set
forth in the instrument as per market value
of the property. Once the instrument is
registered and the stamp duty as prescribed
by the Collector was paid, the burden to
prove that the market value was more than
the minimum prescribed by the Collector
under the rules, was upon the Collector.
The
report of
the
sub-Registrar
or
Tehsildar was not sufficient to discharge
5 All. Anil Kumar Gupta @ Rajendra Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1503
that
burden.
(Vijay
Kumar
Vs.
Commissioner, Meerut Division) AIR 2008
All 176.

The
expression
"reason
to
believe" is not synonymous with subjective
satisfaction of the officer. The belief must
be held in good faith, it cannot be merely a
pretence. It is open to the court to examine
the question whether the reasons for the
belief have a rational connection or a
relevant bearing to the formation of the
belief and are not irrelevant or extraneous
to the purpose of the section. "

12. In the instant case, the Collector
has relied solely upon the spot inspection
report while the petitioner, on the other
hand, had questioned the said report and
filed objection but the objections raised by
the petitioner were not even dealt with by
the Collector and he proceeded to ascertain
the valuation of the land solely on the basis
of the spot inspection report which was
duly challenged by the petitioner. While
assessing the stamp valuation of the land it
was
open
in
the
present
set
of
circumstances for the Collector to have
exercised the powers so vested in him
under Rule 7 sub clause 3 (c) of the Rules
of 1997 and get the land inspected as
requested
by
the
petitioner
in
his
application.

13. It is noticed that according to Rule
7 when reference is received by the
Collector after issuance of notice to the
parties be directing them to show cause as
to why the stamp fee of the property cited
in the instrument be not realized in exercise
of the powers conferred in sub clause 3 of
Rule 7 (3) and inspect the property after
due notice to the parties to the instrument.
Undoubtedly, as recorded in the order of
the Commissioner himself such a request
was made by the petitioner in the appeal
preferred by him. When such a request is
made then it is mandatory upon the
authorities concerned to exercise the
powers conferred under Section 7 (3) (c)
of the Rules of 1997 and inspect the
property after giving due notice to the
parties and only then proceed with the
matter. In case aforesaid exercise has not
been conducted valuable right vested in the
person who is put under notice is lost and
valuable right cannot be exercised by him
and the procedure as prescribed is required
to be followed in letter and spirit and not
inspecting the property even after the
application made by the petitioner is clearly
arbitrary and illegal and proceeding with
the matter without exercising the power
conferred under Section 7 (3) (C) the
respondents have clearly proceeded in
illegal and arbitrary manner while holding
that the petitioner was liable to pay stamp
duty even for the double story house which
was standing on the said plot.

14. Without even entering into the
merits of the other aspects as raised by the
petitioner, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned orders are illegal
and arbitrary having been passed without
following the provisions prescribed under
the Rules of 1997 and accordingly the
orders dated 5.3.2008 passed by respondent
No.2 in case No.12 of 2007-08, under
Section 47-A/33 of Stamp Act and the
order
dated
30.11.2009
passed
by
respondent No.3 in Appeal No.7/21 of
2008 under Section 56 (1-A) of Indian
Stamp Act as well as recovery citation
dated 26.7.2010 are are set aside.

15. The matter is remitted back to
Additional District Magistrate (F & R),
Fatehpur, who shall proceed afresh in the
matter after inspecting the property as
1504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provided under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997
in accordance with law. He is directed to
conclude the proceedings expeditiously
after giving due opportunity of hearing to
the parties concerned. Let such an exercise
be concluded within a period of two
months from the date a certified copy of
this order is placed before him.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in pursuance of earlier
direction of this Court the 1/3rd deficient
amount of the stamp duty has already been
deposited
by
him
before
Tahsildar,
Fatehpur. It is, therefore, provided that the
the said deposited amount shall be adjusted
in the order to be passed by Additional
District Magistrate (F & R), Fatehpur in
pursuance of the directions of this Court.

17. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1504
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-C No. 58632 of 2017

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tarun Varma, Sri Ashish Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rahul Jain

Civil Laws - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226, 227 - Public Premises
Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act,
1971 - Sections 9 & 83(9) - Application to
issue
appropriate
direction
permitting
the
petitioner to get the premises vacated from the
respondents
who
have
attained
age
of
superannuation and no longer associated with
petitioner - by placing reliance upon a judgment
of the Apex Court in case of 'LIC vs Nandini J.
Shah' respondents pleaded that writ petition
under Article 226 is not maintainable - court
finds that, either sitting in jurisdiction under
Article 226 or under 227 court cannot ignore the
fact that respondents are occupying official
accommodations,
which
they
claim
to
be
associated with their services and therefore,
admittedly, those who have attained the age of
superannuation, cannot be allowed to remain in
occupation in the accommodations, irrespective of
the nature of their services or even on the ground
that certain sums allegedly payable to them
remain unpaid to them - held, the High court, in
whatever jurisdiction it sits, always functions on
the basic principles of equity, fairness and
reasonableness, and therefore, the stand of the
petitioner needs consideration and cannot be
ignored merely on the ground that the writ petition
finally has to be heard either under Article 226 or
Article 227 - hence, writ petition allowed -
directions issued to vacate the premises and hand
over peacefully.(Para - 20, 21, 22)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs
Nandini J. Shah reported in (2018) 15 SCC 356,

2. Kiran Devi Vs Bihar St. Suni Wakf Board &
ors. (2021 SCC Online SC 280,

3. M/s Hindustan Auto Agency Vs Steel
Authority of India Ltd. (2021) 4 JBCJ 653,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Jain,
learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to
8 and learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent no.9.

2. The instant application has been
filed with a prayer to issue appropriate