# Deo Prakash Maurya v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1124
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-14
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 23502 of 2012
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deo-prakash-maurya-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47350
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Stamp Act (2 of 1899) -
Sections 27, 75 & 47A - U.P. Stamp
(Valuation of Property) Rules (1997) - R.7
- Stamp duty - determination of market
value for the purpose of stamp duty - on
the basis of ex-parte report of ADM (F/R)
or other officer - Not proper

Intendment of such inspection report is only
to assist the adjudicating authority to record a
prima facie satisfaction on the correctness of
the valuation of the property as disclosed in
the instrument - Ex-parte inspection report
merely
becomes
the
basis
of
initiating
proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 - Once the report is disputed
by the noticee, the stamp authorities cannot
place reliance on the same to determine
stamp liability - Adjudicating authority is
required to make an independent enquiry as
prescribed in Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules to
determine the valuation of the property and
on that basis assess the stamp liability
payable on the instrument (Para 10)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha Vs St. of u.p. and
Prashant Shukla son of Sushil Chand Shukla,
reported at 2005 (2) AWC 1087

## Text

1124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1) The petitioner shall file a fresh
application under Section 67(A) of the Code
before
the
respondent
No.3Tehsildar/Assistant
Collector
1st
Class,
Tehsil-Moth, District-Jhansi, within a period
of one month from the date of production of a
computer generated copy of this order
downloaded from the official website of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official
shall
verify the authenticity of such computerized
copy of the order from the official website of
High Court Allahabad and shall make a
declaration of such verification in writing.

(2)
The
respondent
No.3Tehsildar/Assistant
Collector
1st
Class,
Tehsil-Moth, District-Jhansi, shall register the
proceedings under Section 67(A) of the Code
upon submission of such application.

(3) Proceedings under Section
67(A) of the Code so instituted shall be
consolidated and heard with proceedings
under Section 67 of the Code registered as
Case No.T201806370201602 (Gaon Sabha
Vs. Govind Singh) and decided by a common
order, consistent with the observations made
in this judgement.

(4). Prior to entering a final
judgement the court below shall ensure that
demarcation of disputed parcels of lands is
completed as per law.

21. The writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1124
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.
Writ C No. 23502 of 2012

Deo Prakash Maurya ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.S. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Stamp Act (2 of 1899) -
Sections 27, 75 & 47A - U.P. Stamp
(Valuation of Property) Rules (1997) - R.7
- Stamp duty - determination of market
value for the purpose of stamp duty - on
the basis of ex-parte report of ADM (F/R)
or other officer - Not proper

Intendment of such inspection report is only
to assist the adjudicating authority to record a
prima facie satisfaction on the correctness of
the valuation of the property as disclosed in
the instrument - Ex-parte inspection report
merely
becomes
the
basis
of
initiating
proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 - Once the report is disputed
by the noticee, the stamp authorities cannot
place reliance on the same to determine
stamp liability - Adjudicating authority is
required to make an independent enquiry as
prescribed in Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules to
determine the valuation of the property and
on that basis assess the stamp liability
payable on the instrument (Para 10)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha Vs St. of u.p. and
Prashant Shukla son of Sushil Chand Shukla,
reported at 2005 (2) AWC 1087

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kamal Shankar Ojha,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
9 All Deo Prakash Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1125

2. The petitioner has assailed the
order dated 21.06.2011 passed by the
learned
adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra,
determining the stamp liability of the
petitioner on the instrument in issue as well
as the order dated 22.03.2012 passed by the
learned appellate authority/Commissioner,
Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, affirming
the order of the learned adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/Collector
(Stamp), Sonebhadra.

3. The learned adjudicating authority/
District
Magistrate/Collector
(Stamp),
Sonebhadra in the impugned order dated
21.06.2011 has placed exclusive reliance
on a report submitted by the Additional
District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue),
Sonebhadra, after the inspection of the
disputed
premises.
The
report
dated
30.09.2009 was submitted in the aftermath
of the sale-deed. The sale-deed was
executed on 20.04.2009. The petitioner had
tendered his objection to the aforesaid
inspection report. While finding against the
petitioner, the adjudicating authority held
that insufficient evidence was adduced by
the petitioner against the offending report.
On this footing, the findings of the report
dated 30.09.2009 of the learned Additional
District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue),
Sonebhadra in regard to the valuation of the
property was upheld. The objection of the
petitioner that the constructions were raised
and
the
crushing
operations
begun
subsequent to the date of purchase was
accordingly invalidated.

4.

The
learned
appellate
authority/Commissioner,
Vindhyachal
Mandal, Mirzapur, agreed with the findings
of
the
learned
adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/
District
Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra,
and affirmed its order by the impugned
order dated 22.03.2012.

5. Sri Kamal Shankar Ojha, learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that the
learned authorities below erred in law by
relying on the report submitted by the
learned Additional District Magistrate
(Finance & Revenue), Sonebhadra dated
30.09.2009. The learned authorities below
illegally failed to make an enquiry under
Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp
(Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. The
reliance is placed on the law laid down by
this Court in Ram Khelawan Alias
Bachcha son of Ram Ratan Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh Through Collector and
Prashant Shukla son of Sushil Chand
Shukla, reported at 2005 (2) AWC 1087.

6. The applicability of the law laid
down by this Court in Ram Khelawan
(supra) could not be disputed on behalf of
the State.

7. Learned Standing Counsel could
not dispute the applicability of Ram
Khelawan (supra) to the facts of this case.

8. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

9. A perusal of the impugned orders
passed by the learned courts below
discloses that sole and exclusive reliance
was placed on the report submitted by the
learned Additional District Magistrate
(Finance & Revenue), Sonebhadra on
30.09.2009 while finding against the
petitioner.

10. The intendment of such inspection
report is only to assist the adjudicating
authority
to
record
a
prima
facie
satisfaction on the correctness of the
1126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
valuation of the property as disclosed in the
instrument.
The
said
report
merely
becomes the basis of initiating proceedings
under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899. Once the report is disputed by
the noticee, the stamp authorities cannot
place reliance on the same to determine
stamp liability. The adjudicating authority
will have to make an independent enquiry
as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh
Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997
to determine the valuation of the property
and on that basis assess the stamp liability
payable on the instrument.

11. This narrative is supported by
good authority in point. In Ram Khelawan
(supra), this Court while construing the
purpose of the inspection report [Such as
one made by the learned Additional District
Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) in this
case], held as under:

"25. It has been found in several
cases like the present one that the entire
basis of determination of market value for
the purpose of stamp duty is ex-parte report
of Tehsildar or other officer. Ex-parte
inspection report may be relevant for
initiating the proceedings under Section 47A of Stamp Act. However, for deciding the
case no reliance can be placed upon the
said report. After initiation of the case
inspection is to be made by the Collector or
authority hearing the case after due notice
to the parties to the instrument as provided
under Rule-7(3) (c) of the Rules of 1997.
Moreover in the inspection report distance
of the property from other residential or
commercial properties and road must be
shown and wherever possible sketch map
must also be annexed alongwith the report
so that correct valuation may be ascertained
with reasonable certainity."

12. The proposition of law is squarely
applicable to the facts of this case. On this
footing alone, the orders passed by the
learned authorities below are vitiated.

13. There is another aspect to the
matter. Upon receipt of the report the
District
Magistrate/District
Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra,
is under an obligation of law to carry out an
independent enquiry to determine the
valuation of the property and the property
comprised in the instrument and then
determine
the
stamp
liability.
A
comprehensive procedure in that regard is
set out in Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh
Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997.
The said provision is being extracted
hereunder for ease of reference:

"7. Procedure on receipt of a
reference or when suo motu action is
proposed
under Section
47-A.-(1)
On
receipt of a reference or where action is
proposed to be taken suo motu under Section
47-A, the Collector shall issue notice to
parties to the instrument to show cause within
thirty days of the receipt of such notice as to
why the market value of the property set forth
in the instrument and the duty payable
thereon be not determined by him.

(2) The Collector may admit oral
or documentary evidence, if any, produced by
the parties to the instrument and call for and
examine the original instrument to satisfy
himself as to the correctness of the market
value of the subject-matter of the instrument
and for determining the duty payable thereon.

(3) The Collector may-

(a) Call for any information or
record from any public office, officer or
9 All Deo Prakash Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1127
authority under the Government or a local
authority;

(b)
Example
and
record
the
statement of any public officer or authority
under the Government or the local authority;
and

(c) Inspect the property after due
notice to parties to the instrument.

(4)
After
considering
the
representation of the parties, if any and
examining the records and other evidence, the
Collector shall determine the market value of
the subject-matter of the instrument and the
duty payable thereon.

(5) If, as a result of such inquiry, the
market value is found to be fully and truly set
forth and the instrument duly stamped
according to such value, it shall be returned to
the person who made the reference with a
certificate to that effect. A copy of such
certificate shall also be sent to the Registering
Officer concerned.

(6) If, as a result of inquiry, the
instrument is found to be under valued and not
duly stamped, necessary action shall be taken in
respect of it according to relevant provisions of
the Act."

14. The District Magistrate/Collector
(Stamps), Sonebhadra has failed to cause an
enquiry in the manner prescribed under Rule 7
of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 to determine the
valuation of the property. It is beyond the pale
of dispute that the District Magistrate/Collector
(Stamps), Sonebhadra has evidently fettered his
jurisdiction for no good cause.

15.

The
learned
appellate
authority/Commissioner,
Vindhyachal
Mandal, Mirzapur in its order dated
22.03.2012 failed to redeem the error
committed by the learned adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/Collector
(Stamp), Sonebhadra.

16. In wake of the preceding
narrative, the order dated 21.06.2011
passed
by
the
learned
adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/Collector
(Stamps), Sonebhadra as well as the order
dated 22.03.2012 passed by the learned
appellate
authority/Commissioner,
Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, are liable
to be set aside and are set aside.

17. The matter is remitted to the
learned
adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/Collector
(Stamps),
Sonebhadra, with the following directions:

I.
The
learned
adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/Collector
(Stamps), Sonebhadra, shall decide the
matter afresh, consistent with the manner
stated in this judgement.

II. The controversy shall be
adjudicated by the learned adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/Collector
(Stamps), Sonebhadra, within a period of
three months from the date of production of
a computer generated copy of this order,
downloaded from the official website of the
High
Court
Allahabad.
The
Authority/Official
shall
verify
the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.

III. The petitioner undertakes to
cooperate in the enquiries before the
learned
adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/Collector
(Stamps),
1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sonebhadra, and shall not seek any
unnecessary adjournment.

IV. If necessary, the learned
adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra,
shall conduct the proceedings on day to day
basis to ensure that the above stipulated
timeline of three months is strictly adhered
to.

V. The amount already deposited
by the petitioner shall remain subject to the
final
adjudication
by
the
learned
adjudicating
authority/District
Magistrate/Collector (Stamps), Sonebhadra
in accordance with the above directions.

18. Before parting, this Court deems it
appropriate to highlight another important
issue. The law laid down by this Court in
Ram Khelawan (supra) is now well
settled. This Court in several cases had
noticed the stamp authorities had been
erring by relying an ex parte inspection
reports which are to be used solely for the
purposes of initiation of proceedings under
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The authorities
are not any the wiser today. This Court also
comes to the conclusion independently that
the same error is being repeated by the
authorities in several cases including the
instant case. This aspect needs to be
redressed.

19. The Principal Secretary, Stamp
and Registration, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, shall ensure that appropriate
training
programmes
and
workshops/seminars for the adjudicating
authorities as well as appellate authorities
are regularly held to enable them to acquire
knowledge of the laws including the body
of judicial precedents which govern the
interpretation of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899.
The
distilled
wisdom
of
the
judgements handed down by constitutional
courts should constantly guide the actions
of the revenue authorities.

20. Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall
communicate this order to the Principal
Secretary,
Stamp
and
Registration,
Government of U.P., Lucknow, along with
his suggestions.

21. The Principal Secretary, Stamp
and Registration, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow is expected to take appropriate
measures in this regard within a period of
four months from today.

22. Such regular workshops will help
the authorities to remain abreast of the laws
and empower them to faithfully implement
the intendment of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 and protect the interests of the
Revenue while respecting the rights of
common citizens. It will also prevent
unnecessary litigation.

23. The writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1128
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 25136 of 2016

Shri Shanti Swaroop Krishi Inter College,
Hapur & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners: