# Atul Kumar v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 584
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-04-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17472 of 2009
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/atul-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41927
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Property) Rules 1997-Rule 4 and 5-Mode
of calculation of valuation of commercial
building-argument that on monthly rent
only 300 time would be valuation-while
the
authorities
valued
the
Building
including
structure
also-heldmisconceived-undisputedly
building
standing on land-being subject matter of
transaction-order passed by authoritiesheld justified.

Held: Para 16

In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances,
the
authorities
have
rightly determined the minimum market
value of the property covered by the sale
deed
dated
21.106
by
adding
the
minimum market value of the land and
the building together. The submission
that in case of a commercial building
only the minimum market value of the
building as determined under Rule 5 of
the Rules is to be considered and not the
land cannot be accepted as the land also
had formed part of the sale.

(B) Constitution of India, Article 226valuation of commercial property fixedas
per
valuation
assessed
by
the
authority-including
commercial
to
structure as well as the land covered by
such structure-proper-but penalty can
not be imposed without assigning any
reason.

Held: Para 18 & 19

A perusal of the impugned orders reveal
that the authorities have not assigned
any reason for imposing penalty. No
finding has been recorded that the
petitioner willfully and deliberately had
disclosed lower market value with the
intention to evade stamp duty.

In the case of Smt. Sonia Jindal Vs. State
of
U.P.
and
others,
Writ
Petition
No.20357 of 2011 decided on 7.4.2011, I
have already held that the order of
penalty cannot stand unless some reason
is assigned and a finding of intentional
evaision of stamp duty is recorded. In
the absence of any reasoning and a
finding to the above effect makes the
order of penalty unsustainable in law.
Case law discussed:
Writ Petition No.20357 of 2011 decided on
7.4.2011,

## Text

584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
constituted by the government order dated
27th January, 2011.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17472 of 2009

Atul Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Smt. Archana Tyagi
Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

(A) Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules 1997-Rule 4 and 5-Mode
of calculation of valuation of commercial
building-argument that on monthly rent
only 300 time would be valuation-while
the
authorities
valued
the
Building
including
structure
also-heldmisconceived-undisputedly
building
standing on land-being subject matter of
transaction-order passed by authoritiesheld justified.

Held: Para 16

In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances,
the
authorities
have
rightly determined the minimum market
value of the property covered by the sale
deed
dated
21.106
by
adding
the
minimum market value of the land and
the building together. The submission
that in case of a commercial building
only the minimum market value of the
building as determined under Rule 5 of
the Rules is to be considered and not the
land cannot be accepted as the land also
had formed part of the sale.

(B) Constitution of India, Article 226valuation of commercial property fixedas
per
valuation
assessed
by
the
authority-including
commercial
to
structure as well as the land covered by
such structure-proper-but penalty can
not be imposed without assigning any
reason.

Held: Para 18 & 19

A perusal of the impugned orders reveal
that the authorities have not assigned
any reason for imposing penalty. No
finding has been recorded that the
petitioner willfully and deliberately had
disclosed lower market value with the
intention to evade stamp duty.

In the case of Smt. Sonia Jindal Vs. State
of
U.P.
and
others,
Writ
Petition
No.20357 of 2011 decided on 7.4.2011, I
have already held that the order of
penalty cannot stand unless some reason
is assigned and a finding of intentional
evaision of stamp duty is recorded. In
the absence of any reasoning and a
finding to the above effect makes the
order of penalty unsustainable in law.
Case law discussed:
Writ Petition No.20357 of 2011 decided on
7.4.2011,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.)

1. Heard Smt. Archana Tyagi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents.

2. Pleadings have been exchanged
between the parties and they agree for
final disposal of the writ at the admission
stage itself.
2 All] Atul Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
585

3. The petitioner by means of the
above writ petition challenges the order
dated 31.10.08 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner (Stamp) Muzaffarnagar
and the appellate order thereto dated
24.2.09
passed
by
Assistant
Commissioner
(Administration)
Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur.

4. The first argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that market
value of the commercial building is to be
determined strictly in accordance with
Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp
(Valuation of Property) Rules 1997. The
said Rule prescribes that the market value
of a commercial building is to be
determined by taking the minimum rent of
the building fixed by the Collector in
accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules and
multiplying it with the constructed area.
Therefore, the value of the land on which
the building exist is not to be taken and it
stands excluded.

5. The document in question is a
sale deed of a shop having an area of
47.18 sq. meter. Stamp duty on the
aforesaid sale deed is payable on the
market value of the property transferred.

6. In exercise of the Rule making
power contained in Section 75 of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the State
Government has framed the Uttar Pradesh
Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules
1997.

7. The said Rules vide Rule 4
empowers the Collector to fix minimum
rate for valuing land, construction of noncommercial building and the rate of rent
of commercial building. The said Rule
thus provides for fixing separate rate for
the valuation of the land, constructed
portion of the non-commercial buildings
and the rate of rent for commercial
buildings by the Collector for the
purposes of determining the market value
of any property which may be the subject
matter of conveyance.

8. At the same time Rule 5 of the
Rules
provides
for
the
mode
of
calculation of the minimum market value
of land and building. Separate mode of
calculation
has
been
made
for
determining the market value of a noncommercial building and of a commercial
building.

In the present case, we are concerned
with the determination of the market
value of a non commercial building.

9. The said Rule provides that the
minimum market value of a commercial
building is to be determined on the basis
of 300 times the minimum monthly rent
of the building fixed by the Collector
under Rule 4 and by multiplying it by the
constructed area.

10. In other words, the minimum
rent of a commercial building fixed by the
Collector under Rule 4 multiplied by the
area of the building and increasing it to
300 times would be the minimum market
value of the commercial building.

11. The aforesaid provision which is
contained in Rule 5-C(ii) of the Rules
provides for determining the minimum
market value of a building only. It does
not lay down the method of determining
the minimum market value of the land
occupied by the building.

12. The method of determining the
market value of any land is provided in
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Rule 5(a) of the Rules. It provides that the
area of the land multiplied by the
minimum rate for valuation of land fixed
by the Collector in Rule 4 of the Rules
will be the minimum market value.

13. A conjoint reading of Rules 4
and 5 of the Rules would make it clear
that for the purposes of determining the
market value of a commercial property
the market value of the land as well as the
minimum market value of the building as
prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules are
to be taken together. Both the values
taken together would ultimately determine
the market value of the property.

14.

It
is
well
settled
that
constructions existing on a land forms
part of it and as such the two have to be
valued together unless proved otherwise
as in cases where super structure is
transferred separately and not along with
the land.

15. In the present case, the petitioner
had admittedly purchased a single storied
shop along with the land having an area of
47.18 sq. meters as is evident from the
sale deed dated 21.1.06 itself. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he had
purchased only the super structure and not
the land.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, the authorities have
rightly determined the minimum market
value of the property covered by the sale
deed
dated
21.106 by
adding
the
minimum market value of the land and
the building together. The submission that
in case of a commercial building only the
minimum market value of the building as
determined under Rule 5 of the Rules is to
be considered and not the land cannot be
accepted as the land also had formed part
of the sale.

17. The other submission of Smt.
Tyagi, is that the imposition of penalty
under the facts and circumstances of the
case cannot be justified.

18. A perusal of the impugned
orders reveal that the authorities have not
assigned any reason for imposing penalty.
No finding has been recorded that the
petitioner willfully and deliberately had
disclosed lower market value with the
intention to evade stamp duty.

19. In the case of Smt. Sonia Jindal
Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition
No.20357 of 2011 decided on 7.4.2011, I
have already held that the order of penalty
cannot stand unless some reason is
assigned and a finding of intentional
evaision of stamp duty is recorded. In the
absence of any reasoning and a finding to
the above effect makes the order of
penalty unsustainable in law.

20. Accordingly, writ petition is
partly allowed and while upholding the
validity of the orders determining the
deficiency in stamp duty, the other part of
the order which imposes penalty is
quashed. In all other respects the
impugned orders will remain intact and
would stand modified to the extent
indicated above.

21. Writ Petition allowed in part
with no order as to costs.
---------
2 All] Jai Bahadur Singh V. Union Bank of India
587
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA,J.
THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19717 of 2011

Jai Bahadur Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Bank of India
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner :
Avinash Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent :
A.T. Kulshrestha

U.P. Public Money Recovery of Dues Act,
1972-Recover Certificate-Loan advanced
for purchase of Mahindra Bolero-default in
payment
of
installments-can
not
be
recovered as arrears of land revenueRecovery Certificate quashed-with liberty
to recover the same in accordance with
law.

Held: Para 7

In view of the statement made by Shri A.T.
Kulshrestha,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-Union Bank of India, it is
evident that the recovery proceedings
initiated against the petitioner by issuance
of Recovery Certificate dated 4.1.2011 for
making
recovery
as
arrears
of
land
revenue under the U.P. Public Money
Recovery of Dues Act, 1972 are without
jurisdiction.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S. P. Mehrotra,J. )

1. The present Writ Petition has been
filed, inter-alia, praying for quashing the
Recovery Certificate dated 4.1.2011 sent by
the respondent-Union Bank of India to the
Collector, District Azamgarh for recovering
the amount as arrears of land revenue under
the U.P. Public Money Recovery of Dues
Act, 1972.

2. In paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition,
the petitioner has, inter-alia, stated that the
loan was taken "in the scheme of P.M.R.Y
to instal Motor Vehicle".

3. As the purpose for grant of loan and
also the scheme, if any, under which the
same was granted, was not clear from the
averments made in the Writ Petition, we
granted time to Shri A.T. Kulshrestha,
learned counsel for the respondent-Union
Bank of India to obtain instructions in the
matter.

4. Shri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned
counsel for the respondent-Union Bank of
India has obtained instructions in the matter,
and on the basis of the said instructions, he
states that the loan was given to the
petitioner for purchasing Motor Vehicle,
namely, Mahindra Bolero.

5. Shri A.T. Kulshrestha further states
that such loan cannot be recovered as
arrears of land revenue, and the Recovery
Certificate has been sent by the respondentUnion Bank of India to the Collector,
District Azamgarh under misconception.

6. We have heard Shri Avinash
Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned counsel
for the respondent-Union Bank of India.

7. In view of the statement made by
Shri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for
the respondent-Union Bank of India, it is
evident that the recovery proceedings
initiated against the petitioner by issuance
of Recovery Certificate dated 4.1.2011 for
making recovery as arrears of land revenue