# Bharat Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 172
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-28
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 7616 of 2020
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bharat-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49635
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
- Section 47 A - Assessment - Section 56 -
Appeal ,The Uttar Pradesh (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 - Rule
7(3)(c)
-
Prior notice , Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code,
2006 (pari materia Section 143 of U.P.
2 All. Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
173
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act) - section 80 - Use of holding for
Industrial,
Commercial
or
Residential
purposes - mere fortuitous circumstance
of an assessee being present at the time
of spot inspection would be completely
irrelevant. (Para -9,10 )

Two plots purchased by petitioner - by deed of
transfer - treated to be residential in nature -
indicated as agriculture in instrument of transfer
- Additional stamp duty imposed upon petitioner
- spot inspection report by Deputy Registrar - no
prior notice - spot inspection conducted after
execution of deed - permanent construction on
property - portion of properties which was
subject matter of sale deed - declared to be
non-agricultural by means of order - spot
inspection taken place belatedly - opposing
parties not denied objection in the writ petition.
(Para -1to12)

HELD:-Orders impugned are in violation of both
Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules 1997 and dictum of
the Court in the case of Ram Khelawan and the
Supreme Court in the case of Ambrish Tandaon.
Therefore, the orders dated 28th March, 2018
and 11th December, 2019 passed by opposite
parties 3 and 2 respectively are set aside. (Para13 to16)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as interpreted by it, it cannot be said that it
exceeded its jurisdiction by constituting a
Committee for review of decision taken by
the Transport Commissioner.

32. This Court has also gone through
the submissions made by the respondent nos.
5 to 7 in their counter affidavit regarding the
Pre Bid Meeting that was held amongst the
bidders and the State respondents and the
specific contentions raised by learned counsel
for the respondent nos. 5 to 7 that it had been
clarified therein that the R.F.B was not to be
submitted along with the bid documents
which has not been controverted by either of
petitioners i.e. the M/S Rhetoric Technologies
Pvt. Ltd and the M/S Rosmerta Technologies
Ltd. Lucknow and has to be taken as closure
of the issue regarding confidentiality being
raised by the petitioners herein.

33. This Court finds that both the
arguments raised by the petitioners M/S
Rhetoric Technologies Pvt. Ltd being found
untenable by this court, its Writ C No. 6210
of 2022 deserves to be dismissed.

34. Since, M/S Rosmerta Technologies
Ltd. Lucknow has adopted the arguments of
learned counsel for the M/S Rhetoric
Technologies Pvt. Ltd with regard to the
competence of the State Government to
interfere in the matter of evaluation of
Technical bids and with regard to the
requirement of the R.F.B. to be submitted
alongwith the Technical bid documents. Both
such arguments having been found untenable,
the challenge of M/S Rosmerta Technologies
Ltd. Lucknow to the decision taken by the
Government on these grounds, also deserves
to be rejected.

35.

Since,
M/S
Rosmerta
Technologies
Ltd.
Lucknow
has
not
challenged
the
recommendation
of
Technical Evaluation Committee dated
01.06.2022 regarding the experience and
other
technical
qualifications
of
the
respondent nos. 5 to 7, this Court does not
find it necessary to make any observations
regarding the competence or otherwise of
the respondent nos. 5 to 7 in terms of
experience.

36. This Court finds itself even
otherwise to be limited in its capabilities of
evaluating the Technical qualifications of
each of the bidders as that has been
evaluated
already
by
two
Experts'
Committees constituted by the Competent
Authority and the Procuring Authority.

37. In view of the discussion made
hereinabove, both the writ petitions are
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 172
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 7616 of 2020

Bharat Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
- Section 47 A - Assessment - Section 56 -
Appeal ,The Uttar Pradesh (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 - Rule
7(3)(c)
-
Prior notice , Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code,
2006 (pari materia Section 143 of U.P.
2 All. Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
173
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act) - section 80 - Use of holding for
Industrial,
Commercial
or
Residential
purposes - mere fortuitous circumstance
of an assessee being present at the time
of spot inspection would be completely
irrelevant. (Para -9,10 )

Two plots purchased by petitioner - by deed of
transfer - treated to be residential in nature -
indicated as agriculture in instrument of transfer
- Additional stamp duty imposed upon petitioner
- spot inspection report by Deputy Registrar - no
prior notice - spot inspection conducted after
execution of deed - permanent construction on
property - portion of properties which was
subject matter of sale deed - declared to be
non-agricultural by means of order - spot
inspection taken place belatedly - opposing
parties not denied objection in the writ petition.
(Para -1to12)

HELD:-Orders impugned are in violation of both
Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules 1997 and dictum of
the Court in the case of Ram Khelawan and the
Supreme Court in the case of Ambrish Tandaon.
Therefore, the orders dated 28th March, 2018
and 11th December, 2019 passed by opposite
parties 3 and 2 respectively are set aside. (Para13 to16)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Ram Khelawan @ Bachchha Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. , 2005 (23) Lucknow Civil Decisions 1681

2. Ganga Ram Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , 2020 (38)
LCD 1991

3. Ambrish Tandon & anr. , (2012) 5 SCC 566

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

1.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner and learned State Counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging
the order dated 28th March, 2018 passed
under Section 47-A of Stamp Act 1899 as
well as order dated 11th December, 2019
passed under Section 56 of the Act in
appeal whereby additional stamp duty has
been imposed upon petitioner with regard
to two of the plots purchased by him by
means of deed of transfer dated 22nd
August 2015, which has been treated to be
residential in nature although it has been
indicated as agriculture in instrument of
transfer.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that by means of sale deed dated
22nd August, 2015, portions of four
properties indicated in gata Nos. 495 Ka,
818, 819 and 820 in the village in question
were
purchased
by
petitioner.
It
is
submitted that since the properties at the
time of purchase were being used for
agriculture
purpose,
stamp
duty
in
accordance
therewith
was
paid
but
thereafter reference under Section 47-A of
the Act was made for treating the properties
to be residential in nature. It is submitted
that reference has been made in view of
spot inspection report by Deputy Registrar
dated 18th January 2016.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that the authorities have erred in
placing reliance on the ex parte spot
inspection report dated 18th January, 2016
as well as the subsequent spot inspection
report dated 27th September, 2017. Two
pronged arguments have been raised
against aforesaid spot inspection reports to
the effect that aforesaid spot inspection was
conducted very much after execution of
deed of transfer whereas the same was
required to be conducted and nature of
property purchased was also required to be
considered at the time of execution of deed
not thereafter. Another ground taken is with
regard to violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules,
1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules
1997')inasmuch
as
no
prior
notice
whatsoever was given to petitioner prior to
conducting the spot inspection. It is thus
submitted that spot inspection having been
conducted quite some time after execution
of deed, could not have formed the basis of
orders impugned since they indicated
situation of properties quite subsequent to
the purchase of properties and not as on the
date of
 execution of deed.

5. Learned counsel has also submitted
that specific objections had been taken by
the petitioner to the spot inspection report
to submit that there was no construction on
the property as on the date of execution of
deed but the said objections have not been
adverted to in the impugned order and
burden of proof has been incorrectly placed
upon the petitioner. Learned counsel also
submits that even otherwise spot inspection
having not been conducted by the Collector
himself in terms of aforesaid Rules, can not
be the sole basis of passing of impugned
order. On that score, petitioner has placed
reliance on the judgment of this court in the
case of Ram Khelawan alias Bachchha
versus State of U.P. and others reported in
2005 (23) Lucknow Civil Decisions 1681.

6. It is submitted that even the
appellate authority has not adverted to
pleadings raised in appeal and has also
rejected the same only on the basis of spot
inspection report.

7. Learned State Counsel has refuted
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for petitioner with submission that perusal
of subsequent inspection report clearly
indicates presence of petitioner at the time
of spot inspection and therefore submits
that due compliance of Rule 7(3)(c) of
Rules 1997 was made and due to his
presence, there was no occasion to have
issued notice for his presence. It is
submitted that there is no dichotomy in spot
inspection report which clearly indicates
permanent construction having been made
on the properties which are subject matter
of instrument of transfer and therefore no
error has been made by the authorities
concerned for placing reliance on the
aforesaid reports.

8. Upon consideration of submissions
advanced by learned counsel for parties and
perusal of material on record, it transpires
that instrument of transfer is dated 22nd
August, 2015 but the first spot inspection
report was made only on 18th January,
2016 by the Deputy Registrar whereafter
matter was referred under Section 47-A (3)
of the Act. A perusal of the said spot
inspection report does not indicate presence
of petitioner at the time of inspection while
indicating permanent constructions having
been raised on the property in question. It is
also on record that a portion of the
properties which was subject matter of sale
deed were declared to be non agricultural
by means of order passed subsequently on
17th March, 2016 under section 80 of
Revenue Code 2006 (pari materia Section
143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act). It appears that another spot
inspection report was submitted on 27th
September, 2017; a perusal of which also
does not indicate any prior notice to the
petitioner before conducting the spot
inspection. A specific plea has been raised
in paragraph 14 of the writ petition
regarding violation of Rule 7 (3)(c) of
Rules 1997. Reply to the aforesaid
paragraph has been indicated in paragraph
14 of counter affidavit which does not
dispute the said fact but only indicates that
2 All. Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
175
since the petitioner was already present at
the time of inspection, therefore no notice
was required. Learned State counsel has
also submitted the same.

9. So far as the aspect of dispensing
with provisions of Rule 7 (3) (c) of Rules
1997 is concerned on the ground that
assessee was already present at the spot, in
the considered opinion of the Court would
be inconsequential since the fortuitous
circumstance of the assessee being present
at time of spot inspection has no relevance
with regard to mandatory provisions of
Rule 7(3)(c) of Rules 1997 as indicated in
the judgment of this Court rendered in the
case of Ganga Ram versus State of U.P. and
others reported in 2020 (38) LCD 1991.

10. Primary purpose of giving prior
notice to an assessee under Rule 7(3)(c) is
for his prior intimation that such an
inspection would be taking place and that
he should be available to object to the
actual situation of purchased property when
the spot inspection is taking place. As such
prior notice is an essential ingredient of
mandatory provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of
Rules
1997
and
mere
fortuitous
circumstance of an assessee being present
at the time of spot inspection would be
completely irrelevant.

11. In the present case, it is clearly
indicated not only in objections taken by
petitioner but as well as in the petition itself
that no prior notice whatsoever was given to
petitioner prior to conduct of spot inspection,
the said objection remains unattended in the
impugned orders and even the specific plea
thereto taken in the writ petition has not been
specifically denied by the opposite parties. In
such circumstance, by opposite parties with
regard to violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of Rules,
1997 is writ large.

12. Another aspect of matter requiring
consideration is that the impugned orders
are based completely only on two spot
inspection reports. First aspect of the matter
is that spot inspection whether by means of
inspection dated 18th January, 2016 or 27th
September, 2017 have taken place quite
belatedly and were not required to be taken
into cognizance for the purposes of
indicating actual possession of property in
question at the time of execution of sale
deed. Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of
Ambrish Tandon and another reported in
(2012) 5 SCC 566 has held as follows:-

"15. The impugned order of the
High Court shows that it was not seriously
disputed about the nature of user of the
building, namely, residential purpose on
the date of the purchase. Merely because
the property is being used for commercial
purpose at the later point of time may not
be a relevant criterion for assessing the
value for the purpose of stamp duty. The
nature of user is relatable to the date of
purchase and it is relevant for the purpose
of calculation of stamp duty. Though the
matter could have been considered by the
appellate
authority
in
view
of
our
reasoning that there was no serious
objection and in fact the said alternative
remedy was not agitated seriously and in
view of the factual details based on which
the High Court has quashed the order
dated 27-9-2004 passed by the Additional
District Collector, we are not inclined to
interfere at this juncture."

13. In view of aforesaid, spot
inspections
taking
place
extremely
belatedly as in the present case, can not be
considered a good ground for consideration
of actual situation of the property at the
time of execution of sale deed.
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. The orders impugned in present
petition are clearly in violation of not only
Rule 7(3)(c)of the Rules 1997 but are also
against the dictum of this Court in the case
of Ram Khelawan (supra) as well as that of
Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of
Ambrish Tandaon (supra).

15. In view of discussions made
herein above, impugned orders dated 28th
March, 2018 as well as order dated 11th
December, 2019 passed by opposite parties
3 and 2 respectively being against law are
hereby set aside.

16. Consequently, the writ petition
succeeds
and
is
allowed
with
consequences. Parties to bear their own
costs.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 176
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ C No. 16298 of 2021

Manoj Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shantanu Sharma, Anshuman Sharma,
Athar Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Indian Arms Act, 1959 -
Section 3 - Licence for acquisition and
possession of firearms and ammunition -
Section 4 - Licence for acquisition and
possession
of
arms
of
specified
description in certain cases - Section 5 -
Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of
arms and ammunition - Section 13 -
Grant of licences, Section14- Refusal of
licences - grant of firearms license is not
a largesse and a person is entitled for
grant of said license on his own right -
undue restrain on keeping and bearing
arms ought not be based on unfounded
fear and license is normally to be
granted
unless
there
is
something
adverse. (Para - 7,19)

(B) The Constitution of India - Article 21
- right to life and liberty, which includes
its right of security and safety, is a
fundamental right of every person -
Keeping a fire arm licence for the
purpose of personal safety and security
is a mode and manner of protection of
oneself and enjoyment of this right -
Statutory power of authority should be
applied in the context of purpose and
objective of statute, and should not be
whimsical. (Para - 18)

Petitioner (practicing Advocate ) applied for
Application for Grant Arms License - purpose -
personal safety and security of property - no
criminal record - application was initially pending
with District Magistrate - Court disposed of
petition with a direction to consider and decide
application - application rejected - appeal filed
by petitioner was rejected - hence petition.
(Para - 3,10)

HELD:-The order impugned dated 07.09.2020,
which rejected the application of the petitioner
for a firearms license, is against the provisions
of Section 14 of the Act, 1959. Reasons
contained in the order are beyond the reasons
enumerated under Section 14 of the Act, 1959.
Orders
impugned
dated
12.04.2021
and
07.09.2020 quashed. Matter remitted to District
Magistrate, to pass an order on the application
of the petitioner for grant of firearms license
within six weeks. (Para - 21)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ-C No.16565 of 2012