# Devendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 598
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-30
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 3796 of 2005
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-bahadur-singh-v-state-of-u-p-49716
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Sections
47-A
&
56
-
GOs.
dated
31.05.2001, 30.06.2001 and 01.07.2004 -
Sale-deed
executed
after
auction
proceeding - Relaxation in stamp duty -
GOs provide that the stamp duty would be
paid on the actual consideration amount,
which has been accepted by the U.P.F.C in
auction proceedings - Junked cold storage
was purchased in the auction on the basis
of highest bid - Assessment of value of
land of cold storage - Stamp deficiency
imposed on the basis of actual price -
Penalty also imposed - Validity challenged
- Held, the stamp duty would be payable
on the auctioned value and rest market
value excluding the market value. (Para
20, 24 and 27)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)

## Text

598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recovered from the claimant and abide by
the final determination to be made about
the claim. Any part of the compensation
held in deposit with the Tribunal or a Bank
under interim orders passed in this case
shall,
however,
be
refunded
to
the
appellant. The Tribunal shall proceed to
decide the claim petition afresh within
three months of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, after hearing parties, that is to
say, the Insurance Company and the
claimant, bearing in mind the directions in
this judgment. Both the parties shall appear
before
the
Presiding
Officer,
Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Banda on
30.01.2023.

43. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the Presiding Officer,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banda by
the Registrar (Compliance) forthwith.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 598
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 3796 of 2005

Devendra Bahadur Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Sections
47-A
&
56
-
GOs.
dated
31.05.2001, 30.06.2001 and 01.07.2004 -
Sale-deed
executed
after
auction
proceeding - Relaxation in stamp duty -
GOs provide that the stamp duty would be
paid on the actual consideration amount,
which has been accepted by the U.P.F.C in
auction proceedings - Junked cold storage
was purchased in the auction on the basis
of highest bid - Assessment of value of
land of cold storage - Stamp deficiency
imposed on the basis of actual price -
Penalty also imposed - Validity challenged
- Held, the stamp duty would be payable
on the auctioned value and rest market
value excluding the market value. (Para
20, 24 and 27)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J. )

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satish Mohan
Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and perused the material available on
record.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner to issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
20.07.2004, passed by the Collector,
Etawah and order dated 27.12.2004 passed
by Revisional Court (C.C.R.A).

3. In brief facts of the case are that the
U.P.F.C under Section 29 of the U.P.
Financial Corporation Act 29 of the State
Financial Corporation Act has taken the
possession of one Cold Storage situated in
Village Lakhana known as Durga Cold
Storage in recovery action of its loan. It
was lying for about decay in the custody of
U.P. Financial Corporation and it has come
almost in the junked shape when the
advertisement has been made by U.P. F.C
to sell it in the year 2002.

4. The petitioner's highest bid was
accepted for the sale of Cold Storage by the
2 All. Devendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P.
599
U.P.F.C on a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (fifteen
lacs), which has been registered later on
before
the
Sub
Registrar
Bharthana,
District Etawah on 14.06.2002.

5. The Collector, Etawah has issued
the notice and impounded the sale-deed on
the ground that the sale consideration
amount is less to the actual price etc. The
petitioner submitted the reply to the
Collector, Etawah against the notice issued
under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act,
which was registered as Case No. 04 of
2003-04 - (State Vs. Devendra Bahadur
Singh). The petitioner in his objection has
categorically
stated
that
the
sale
consideration amount, which has been paid
by him, was the actual price of the
dilapidated Cold Storage Building, where
there was no plant and machinery and it
was not in working condition. The offer
was made by the petitioner on the
advertisement issued by the U.P.F.C and
the highest offer of the petitioner was
accepted by the U.P.F.C for a sum of Rs.
15,00,000/- on which the stamp duty was
paid by the petitioner. The Principal
Secretary has issued the departmental order
dated 26.11.2001. The amount is the actual
market value of the property, no less stamp
has been paid by the petitioner. The said
order passed by the Principal Secretary is
appended as Annexure No. 1.

6. Earlier the State Government
had
issued
an
order
31.05.2001,
whereby the State Government had
taken
the
decision
that
if
any
corporation
has
sold
the
attached
property then the consideration amount,
which has been paid, be treated to be
the actual consideration amount and the
registration shall be made on the sale
consideration amount. The said G.O has
been appended as Annexure No. 2.

7. The State Government has again
issued direction on 30th June, 2001, which
is appended as Annexure No. 3. Recently
on 01.07.2004, the State Government has
again issued a notification under Section 9
(1) (A) of the Act that transfer to be made
on the consideration amount offered for
any auction proceeding, which is appended
as Annexure No. 4. (In this G.O. for the
first time the U.P.F.C has been included
with other corporations).

8. The Collector, Etawah has illegally
passed an order dated 20.07.2004 whereby
he assessed the value of the land of the cold
storage as Rs. 53,86,500.00/- of 7695
square meters land and the value of plant,
machinery and premises has calculated
Rs.15,00,000/- on which Rs.5,50,960 was
calculated as a deficient stamp duty. The
paid amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has been
reduced
and
he
determined
Rs.
4,30,960.00/-
as
balance
stamp
duty
alongwith
the
imposed
penalty
of
Rs.1,75,040.00, which is appended as
Annexure No. 5.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner
preferred a revision under Section 56 (I) of
Indian Stamp Act before the Chief
Controller Revenue Authority U.P. at
Allahabad-cum-Board of Revenue. The
said revision has been marked as Revision
No. 35 of 2004-05- Etawah (Devendra
Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P.), which is
appended as Annexure No. 6.

10. The petitioner has specifically
taken the ground that he purchased the
junked cold storage, which was in the
custody of U.P. Financial Corporation
about in a decayed condition and he offered
the highest price in the auction for a sum of
Rs. 15,00,000/- which was accepted by the
U.P.F.C. The sale-deed has been executed
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in his favour, the petitioner did not make
any concealment of fact, the sale-deed has
been accepted without any objection,
therefore the imposition of stamp duty and
penalty under Section 47-A of the Act is
illegal. The Revisional Court, after hearing
the matter, has dismissed the revision vide
its judgment and order dated 27.12.2004
mainly on the ground that the petitioner is
not
entitled
to
get
any
benefit
of
Government Order dated 01.07.2004 on the
ground that prior to that the U.P. Financial
Corporation was not included in the list of
exempted Departments, he did not consider
the matter on other aspects and he passed
an erroneous order and bad in law. The
impugned order of the Revisional Court
dated 27.12.2004 is appended as Annexure
No. 07 to this writ petition.

11. The authorities below have
committed manifest error in deciding the
dispute and they have wrongly imposed
stamp duty sum of Rs. 4,30,960.00/- as
well as penalty of Rs. 1,75,040.00/- without
any basis. The State Government has given
exemption to the property auctioned by the
U.P.F.C.

12. The Government Orders and
Departmental orders, which have been
issued from time to time, have categorically
stated that the stamp duty would be paid on
the actual consideration amount, which has
been accepted by the U.P.F.C in auction
proceedings.
Therefore,
the
order
is
perverse and is liable to be set-aside. In the
orders cogent findings have not been
recorded and neither the circle rate has
been determined by the Collector, Etawah
nor report of the Tehsildar, that the price of
the property in question was not less than
Rs. 15,00,000/-. On this aspect, the
Collector, Etawah and Revenue Authorities
have

13. On the aforesaid ground, the
petitioner has prayed to quash the aforesaid
impugned orders.

14. The respondents have filed
counter affidavit on 09.05.2005 alleging
that it is true that the petitioner had
purchased a cold storage alongwith the
building and machinery standing thereon
and the deed was registered on 14.06.2002,
but the proper stamp duty was not paid by
the petitioner in accordance with circle rate
floated by the Collector and also on the
valuation of the property, building standing
thereon, therefore notices were issued to
the petitioner.

15. The petitioner filed an objection
and has claimed for exemption of the stamp
duty in accordance with the Government
Order dated 31st may, 2021, which has
already been cancelled by the subsequent
G.O. dated 23.06.2021, thereafter on
26.11.2021 the State Government has
further issued Government Order providing
therein that no exemption can be granted on
the deeds, which are being executed by the
U.P. State Financial Corporation. This fact
has been further clarified vide Government
Order dated 07.12.2002. It is clarified that
the G.O, which is annexed as Annexure
No. 3 to the writ petition was issued on
23rd June, 2001 and not on 30.06.2001 as
referred by the petitioner in para no. 07 in
the writ petition.

16. The Government Order issued on
01st July, 2004 has no retrospective
application because the exemption granted
by the G.O. dated 01.07.2004 can not be
applied retrospectively to the sale deed
which was executed on 14th June, 2002,
because at the time of presentation of saledeed by the U.P.F.C no such exemption
was available to the petitioner.
2 All. Devendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P.
601

17. The order passed by the Collector
on 20th July, 2004 was passed after
affording full opportunity to the petitioner
after taking into account the objection of
the petitioner. The order dated 20th July,
2004 is self explanatory wherein it is
directed that the Collector has taken a very
appropriate steps by not imposing the
deficiency of stamp duty at commercial
rate and as the property situated in village
area therefore residential rate has been
taken into account by the Collector in order
to determine the correct value of the
property. The Collector has applied right
formula and has taken into account the rate
floated by him in exercise of power
conferred under the provisions of U.P.
Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997
and very concurrent findings of facts have
been recorded that the total valuation
comes to the tune of Rs. 53,86,500/- and
the building and cold storage standing
therein has been further valued to the tune
of Rs.1,50,000/- and thus the total valuation
has been arrived to the tune of Rs.
68,86,500/- and on the aforesaid amount
the total stamp duty was payable to the tune
of Rs. 5,50,960/-, but the petitioner
deliberately and knowingly only in order to
evade, the stamp duty has paid to the tune
of Rs.1,20,000/- and thus deficiency of
stamp duty has rightly been charged to the
tune of Rs.4,30,960/-. The order passed by
the Collector dated 20th July, 2004 is self
explanatory. However, the Naib Tehsildar
has submitted the report on 23.10.2002 that
the property in question was commercial
one.

18. The grounds taken in the writ
petition are totally misconceived. The
C.C.R.A
has
rightly
affirmed
and
confirmed the order passed by the Collector
taking into account the situation of the cold
storage and its building, potentiality and
machinery plant standing thereon. Since in
the G.O. dated 26.11.2001 and 07.12.2002,
the exemption claimed by the petitioner is
not available to him, therefore, the
authorities have rightly not granted any
benefit of exemption to the petitioner. Two
authorities
have
recorded
concurrent
finding of fact, therefore the writ petition is
totally misconceived and is liable to be
dismissed.

19. The petitioner has filed rejoinder
affidavit on 19th January, 2006 and has
denied the averments of the counter
affidavit
and
has
alleged
that
the
dilapidated condition of the building of
cold storage and non-functional machinery
laying inside the building was purchased by
the petitioner from U.P.F.C in auction/
negotiation and the U.P.F.C has executed
the sale-deed, which was registered on
14.06.2002.
It is wrong to say that the G.O. dated 01st
July, 2004 is not applicable in present
controversy. The previous G.O. dated
31.05.2001 was also issue to provide
relaxation in stamp duty to the purchaser, if
any unit would be purchased from U.P.F.C
and the Stamp Duty would be paid on
actual consideration amount in light of the
said G.O. dated 31.01.2001 and 23.5.2001,
the subsequent G.O. dated 01st July, 2004
has again being issued by the State
Government.

20. The order dated 20th July, 2004
passed by the Collector is wholly illegal and
it has been passed without considering the
complete facts and circumstances of the case
and he has wrongly assessed the value of the
land building and junked machinery much
more to the price on which the petitioner has
purchased the cold storage. The amount of
tenancy and penalty imposed by the
respondent is wholly arbitrary manner. The
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cold storage is situated out side the urban area
in front of agriculture land. The building was
almost in a junked condition and as per report
of the In-Charge Tehsildar dated 23.10.2002,
it is proved that the cold storage was
damaged by fire in the month of February,
2002. The fire brigade unit came there for
rescue. Both the authorities have not
considered this facts of the case and has
wrongly assessed the valuation. Therefore,
the order dated 20th July, 2004 and
27.12.2004 are patiently illegal and liable to
be quashed. The conditional order dated 28th
January, 2005 has been complied with by the
petitioner and he has deposited the amount of
Rs.43,000/- in compliance of the order passed
by this Hon'ble Court on 28th January, 2015,
therefore, the petition be allowed and the
impugned orders be quashed.

21. The findings of this case are as
under:

22. In the sale-deed the consideration
amount was Rs.15,00,000/-. The cold
storage was ceased by the U.P.F.C in
recovery proceedings under Section 29. It
is incorrect to say that the said value was
not paid by the petitioner. The circle rate
was assessed by the respondent in access
and the Sub Registrar, referred the matter
to
the
Stamp Authority,
where
the
petitioner filed an objection. The G.O.
applicable was produced in support of the
case and it was said that the respondents
authorities have illegally decided the
petition ignoring the Government Order
and the facts of the case.

23. The penalty was also illegally
imposed as Rs. 1,75,040.00/-, the revision
was also dismissed by the C.C.R.A.

24. In this case the property in
question was purchased by the petitioner
from the U.P.F.C on the basis of highest
bid on 04.06.2002, which was registered
before the Sub Registrar, Bharthana,
District Etawah. Before the said date
following G.Os were issued in respect of
payment of stamp duty, which are as under:

1. G.O dated 31.05.2001,

2. G.O. dated 23.06.2001, by
which
the
Government
order
dated
31.05.2001 was repealed.

25. On 26.11.2001, a D.O. letter was
issued by Sri T. George Jokhan, I.A.S,
Member Secretary (Tax & Registration
Department), U.P. Government, Lucknow,
to consider U.P.F.C also in view of the
letter dated 08th November, 2001 sent by
Additional Secretary, Board of Revenue,
Allahabad for issuance of circular.

26. On 01st July, 2004, a Government
Notification was issued specially in respect
of U.P. Finance Corporation that, in case,
any occasion is held and any instruction is
executed between the bidders and U.P.F.C,
the stamp duty would be payable in
accordance with schedule 1-B of Article 23
Clause ''A of U.P.F.C Act, 1951 and the
stamp duty would be payable on the
auctioned value and rest market value
excluding the market value.

27. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the benefits of ordinance
dated 01st July, 2004, was available to the
petitioner. Contrary to that arguments of
the respondents is that since the auction and
registration of the deed had taken place
since before the issuance of date of
ordinance and at the tine of auction and
execution of sale deed, the U.P.F.C was not
given privilege, therefore, the benefits
provided by the ordinance dated 01st July,
2 All. Devendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P.
603
2004 was not available to the petitioner. On
04.06.2002 only the G.O. dated 30th June,
2001, was
available,
by
which
the
notification dated 31st May, 2001 was
repealed. The learned counsel for the
petitioner could not place any law, which
provides the benefits of ordinance dated
01st July, 2004 to the petitioner. In this
ordinance it is no where mentioned that it
has any retrospective effect, therefore
though the auction had been finalised
between the petitioner and U.P.F.C for a
sum of Rs.15,00,000/-(fifteen lac) even
then the stamp duty was payable on the
circle rate as per the Article 23 (a)
Schedule 1 (B) of the Indian Stamp Act.

28. From the perusal of the impugned
orders, it is very much clear that since the
property in question was situated in a rural
area, therefore the Collector ought not have
been valued the property at commercial
rate. Since the property in question was in
the rural area out side the Town Bakewar,
therefore he assessed the property in
question at the rate of Rs.7,00/- per square
meter and multiplied the area into Rs.700/-
i.e. 7,695x700, and he came to the
conclusion that the valuation of land is
Rs.53, 86, 500/-.

29. Contrary to that no evidence could
be placed by the petitioner at the time of
auction and execution proceeding of sale-deed,
the rate of land of the cold storage was less
than Rs.7,00/- per square meter.

30. So far as the valuation of cold
storage building, plant and machinery are
concerned, it is apparent on the face of record
that the learned Collector estimated it at
Rs.15,00,000/- without any basis and in an
imaginary way. The price of cold storage and
building plant and machinery should have
been
valued
properly,
considering
the
condition and also after deducting the
depreciation value.

31. Thus, it is found that so far as the
value of the cold storage building, plant and
machinery are concerned, the Collector and
C.C.R.A have not properly appreciated the
evidence and in imaginary way, they fixed the
price of the same as Rs.15,00,000/- and adding
this amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in the amount of
Rs.53, 86, 500/- have fixed the stamp duty and
the penalty treating short fall of stamp duty.

32. On the basis of the aforesaid
discussions, this Court is of the considered
view that so far as the valuation of the cold
storage building and machinery is concerned,
the same is not properly valued, therefore, the
order of Collector and the C.C.R.A are bad in
the eyes of law in the facts of the case.
Therefore, the case is liable to be remanded
back to the District Magistrate, Etawah, for a
fresh decision particularly regarding the
valuation of the building of the cold storage,
plant and machinery in accordance with law.

O R D E R

33. With the aforesaid observation, the
writ petition is accordingly partly allowed
and the Collector, Etawah, is directed to
value the case properly afresh. For this, the
Collector may also take help of P.W.D
Department, regarding correct assessment of
the plant machinery and building of the cold
storage. It is directed that the Collector,
Etawah shall decide the case after affording
full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
within a period of six months from the date of
production/receiving certified copy of this
order.

34. A copy of this order be also sent
to the Collector, Etawah, for compliance
through the Registrar (Compliance).
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

35. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 604
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-C No. 12112 of 2022

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gautam Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajay Prakash Paul, State Law Officer,
Ms. Ishita Sand, Ms. Anjali Upadhya

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226
-
Mandamus - Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning
and Development Act, 1973 - Section 17 -
restoration of the land - Held - there is no
automatic lapse of acquisition u/s 17 -
proviso to S. 17(1) of the Act gives a right
to an ousted land holder to apply to the
State Government for restoration of land,
if it remains unutilized by a Development
Authority after expiration of a period of
five years from the date of acquisition -
right is to apply for restoration and not to
any kind of an automatic restoration that
the Court may enforce - It is for the
Government to decide, if a person applies
for the enforcement of his rights under
Section 17(1), which the Government may
grant or refuse - Even if the Government
does consider it to be a case for the
restoration of land to the original land
holder, it is subject to repayment of
charges
incurred
in
connection
with
acquisition, together with interest at the
rate
of
12%
per
annum,
besides
development charges, if any, as have been
incurred - no mandamus can be issued to
the Government or the Greater NOIDA by
the mere lapse of a time period of five
years after acquisition, during which the
land has not been utilized (Para 6)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Shyoraj Singh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2022)
1 All LJ 546

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. It appears that the petitioner has
brought this petition, seeking to redeem his
land bearing Khasra No. 375, admeasuring
3240/2 square meters, situate at Village
Dabra, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District
Gautam Buddh Nagar, which has been
acquired by the State under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of
1894') for the purpose of planned industrial
development by the Greater New Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'Greater
NOIDA').
The
aforesaid
land
shall
hereinafter referred to as 'the land in
dispute'.

3. It appears that the land in dispute
was acquired through a notification dated
October 31, 2005 under Section 4/17 of the
Act of 1894 followed by a declaration
dated September 1, 2006 under Section
6/17 of the Act. A perusal of the khatauni
for the years 1409-1414, that correspond to
the calendar years 2001-2006, shows that in
compliance with the order of the Additional
District Magistrate (Land Acquisition)
Greater NOIDA, the name of the ousted