# Birjesh Aggarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 704
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 9298 of 2021
- **Bench:** Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/birjesh-aggarwal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53028
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - Deficiency of Stamp Duty -
A big chunk of land was sub-divided into
37 small plots, having a common passage
of 9 meters, which was duly approved by
the Development Authority. The exit of
the
colony
joined
the
main
road.
Petitioner purchased a residential plot
situated on the 9-meter-wide internal
road, but deficiency of stamp duty was
imposed, treating the plot as if situated on
the main road, merely because the larger
chunk of land abutted the main road, and
that
too
without
any
spot
inspection. Held: Once
a
colony
is
approved by the Development Authority,
the internal roads therein are also deemed
approved and are to be maintained by the
Authority
thereafter.
Once
the
subdivision and the common road have been
approved by the Development Authority,
the inference drawn that the petitioner's
plot is situated on the main road has no
legs to stand on. Merely because the road
of the colony joins the main road, as
stated
above,
will
not
entitle
the
authorities to charge the deficiency of
stamp duty on the petitioner as compared
to the first plot, which is adjacent to the
main road. (Paras 8, 9)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Commissioner (Commercial Tax), holding
charge of the Deputy Commissioner
(Administration),
Commercial
Tax,
NOIDA, to the extent it punishes the
petitioner,
is
hereby
quashed.
The
respondents may pass a fresh order
awarding such punishment as the changed
status of the petitioner on account of his
supervening retirement from service may
admit under the Rules, bearing in mind the
guidance in this judgment. The respondents
shall also pass further orders regarding the
petitioner's
entitlement
to
receive
emoluments for the period of suspension
from service, after putting him to notice for
the limited purpose as aforesaid and
affording
him
due
opportunity.
The
petitioner shall, however, be entitled to the
benefit of continuity in service, which shall
reckon towards the determination of his
post retiral benefits. The question of
earning increments while the petitioner was
in service and arrears, if any, payable on
that account, would be subject to the
penalty that is ultimately awarded by the
respondents.

36. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 704
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ C No. 9298 of 2021

Birjesh Aggarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Brajesh Shukla, Krishna Dutt Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - Deficiency of Stamp Duty -
A big chunk of land was sub-divided into
37 small plots, having a common passage
of 9 meters, which was duly approved by
the Development Authority. The exit of
the
colony
joined
the
main
road.
Petitioner purchased a residential plot
situated on the 9-meter-wide internal
road, but deficiency of stamp duty was
imposed, treating the plot as if situated on
the main road, merely because the larger
chunk of land abutted the main road, and
that
too
without
any
spot
inspection. Held: Once
a
colony
is
approved by the Development Authority,
the internal roads therein are also deemed
approved and are to be maintained by the
Authority
thereafter.
Once
the
subdivision and the common road have been
approved by the Development Authority,
the inference drawn that the petitioner's
plot is situated on the main road has no
legs to stand on. Merely because the road
of the colony joins the main road, as
stated
above,
will
not
entitle
the
authorities to charge the deficiency of
stamp duty on the petitioner as compared
to the first plot, which is adjacent to the
main road. (Paras 8, 9)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned ACSC for the State -
respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed challenging the impugned order dated
04.11.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2
in Case No. 03364/2019 as well as the
impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed
by the respondent no. 3 in Appeal No.
00018/2021.
2 All. Birjesh Aggarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
705
3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that vide sale deed dated
25.07.2019,
the
petitioner
purchased
residential plot in question after paying
requisite stamp duty. He further submits
that the big chunk of the land was divided
in small plots, which was duly approved by
the Saharanpur Development Authority.
Thereafter,
the
Deputy
Registrar,
Saharanpur submitted a report with regard
to deficiency of stamp duty, pursuant to
which proceedings under section 47-A of
the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against
the petitioner and a notice was issued, to
which the petitioner submitted his reply.
Thereafter, the respondent no. 2, vide
impugned order dated 04.11.2020, imposed
deficiency of stamp duty, together with
interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner preferred appeal,
which has been dismissed vide impugned
order dated 08.02.2021. Hence, this writ
petition.

4.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
further
submits
that
the
impugned order has been passed without
considering the case of the petitioner that
the plot in question is situated at 9 meters
wide road, but the same has been passed
treating the plot to be on main road. He
further submits that the Deputy Registrar
has submitted its report without there being
any spot inspection of the plot in question.
He further submits that before passing the
impugned order, the Collector has neither
made any spot inspection, nor called for a
report.

5. He further submits that since the
big chunk of the land has been sub-divided
showing a common passage of 9 meters and
the plot of the petitioner situated against 9
meters road, it was incorrect on the part of the
respondents authorities to hold that the plot of
the petitioner is situated on the main road. He
refers to the sale deed (Annexure No.1 to the
writ petition), where this fact is specifically
mentioned at internal page no. 3. When the
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner, in his reply, the petitioner has
taken a specific ground, but though the said
fact was noticed in the impugned order, but
no weightage was given. In appeal also, the
said fact was mentioned in ground no. 12, but
no finding was recorded to that effect. He
prays for allowing the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports
the impugned order and submits that the land
in question was a big chunk of land, which is
situated on the main road and therefore, the
proceedings have rightly been initiated
against the petitioner. He further submits that
once the plots have been divided, the
purchasers will not escape from their liability
of payment of due stamp duty to the State.

7. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, the Court has perused the records.

8. It is not in dispute that the plot in
question was a big chunk of land, in which 37
plots were sub-divided and exit of the colony
joins the main road, i.e., Bhagat Singh Marg.
The record further reveals that the authorities
have lost sight of the fact that the colony or
sub-division of plots have duly been
approved by the Development Authority.
Once the sub-division and the common road
has been approved by the Development
Authority, the inference drawn that the plot in
question of the petitioner situated at main
road has no legs to stand on.

9. The map of sub-division, which
is duly approved by the Development
Authority has been annexed as Annexure
No. 2 to the writ petition. Plot no. 24 has
been purchased by the petitioner, which is
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not on the main road, but prior to it, plot
nos. 21, 22 & 23 exist and thereafter, the
plot of the petitioner is there. In front of the
plot, there is 9 meters wide road, which is
duly
approved
by
the
Development
Authority. Once a colony is approved by
the Development Authority, it goes without
saying that the road thereof has also been
approved, which is to be maintained by the
Development Authority thereafter. Merely
because the road of the colony joins the
main road, as stated above, will not entitle
the authorities to charge the deficiency of
stamp duty on the petitioner as compared to
the first plot, which is adjacent to the main
road.

10. In view of the peculiar facts &
circumstances of the case as noted above,
the impugned orders passed in these writ
petition cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law. The matters require reconsideration.

11. For the said purpose, the
impugned orders passed by the authorities
below in the writ petition are hereby
quashed.

12.
The
writ
petition
is,
accordingly, allowed.

13. The matter is remanded back to the
Collector (Stamps)/ Assistant Commissioner of
Stamps, Saharanpur, i.e., the respondent no. 2,
for deciding the issue de novo after granting due
opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders,
expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three
months from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.

14. It is made clear that any amount
already deposited by the petitioners shall be
subject to the outcome of the order passed
by the respondent no. 2.
----------