# M/s Uttranchal Automobile (P)Ltd., Meerut v. Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1960
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-06
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 12727 of 2012
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-uttranchal-automobile-p-ltd-meerut-v-chief-controlling-revenue-auth-ors-51592
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-
Uttar
Pradesh
Stamp
(Valuation of Property)Rules,1997-Rule
7(3)©
The
petitioner
challenged
additional
stamp
duty
levied
by
authorities, who treated their land as nonagricultural-the petitioner claimed the
land was agricultural at the time of sale,
with no structures or activities besides
agriculture-the
authorities
failed
to
conduct mandatory spot verification as
per rule 7(3)©-comparable sales used by
the authorities were not applicable as
they referred to non-agricultural land
nearer to highway-Held, valuation should
rely
on
adequate
material,
not
assumptions or surmises-Reiterated the
necessity of spot inspection and evidence
of the land's potential use at the time of
sale-The court quashed the orders for
additional
stamp
duty,
ruling
them
erroneous and unsupported by evidenceDirected
authorities
to
refund
any
deposited amount with 4% interest within
six weeks.(Para 1 to 13)

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

1960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
where
the
sum
involved
is
small/insignificant,
inasmuch
as,
the
amount involved in litigation sometimes far
exceeds, then the benefit, for which the
petition has been filed by the corporation.

12. In light of the above, the writ
petition is dismissed. Interim order, granted
earlier, is hereby discharged.

13. The awarded amount may be
paid to the workman/ respondent no. 2
expeditiously say within a period of six
weeks from today.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1960
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ -C No. 12727 of 2012

M/s
Uttranchal
Automobile
(P)Ltd.,
Meerut ...Petitioner
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.K. Gupta, Sri Sheetla Sahai

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-
Uttar
Pradesh
Stamp
(Valuation of Property)Rules,1997-Rule
7(3)©
The
petitioner
challenged
additional
stamp
duty
levied
by
authorities, who treated their land as nonagricultural-the petitioner claimed the
land was agricultural at the time of sale,
with no structures or activities besides
agriculture-the
authorities
failed
to
conduct mandatory spot verification as
per rule 7(3)©-comparable sales used by
the authorities were not applicable as
they referred to non-agricultural land
nearer to highway-Held, valuation should
rely
on
adequate
material,
not
assumptions or surmises-Reiterated the
necessity of spot inspection and evidence
of the land's potential use at the time of
sale-The court quashed the orders for
additional
stamp
duty,
ruling
them
erroneous and unsupported by evidenceDirected
authorities
to
refund
any
deposited amount with 4% interest within
six weeks.(Para 1 to 13)

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Ajay Agarwal & ors. Vs Commr Lko & ors.
(2023) ADJ 561 LB

2. Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha Vs St.of U.P. &
anr..(2005)2 AWC 1087

3. Raj Kumar Vs St.of U.P. & ors. (Writ-C No.
19644 of 2016

4. Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs St. of U.P. (2015)
Supreme (All) 132

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India has been filed
assailing the order dated February 3, 2011
passed by the respondent No.2 in Stamp
Case No.V-767/09-10 and the order passed
in appeal dated October 17, 2011 by the
respondent No.1 in Appeal No.21/2010-11.

3. The challenge in this writ petition
is with regard to the additional stamp duty
sought
by
the
respondents-authorities
3 All. M/s Uttranchal Automobile (P)Ltd., Meerut Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. & Ors. 1961
having treated the land in question as a
non-agricultural land.

CONTENTIONS
OF
THE
PARTIES

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the nature of the
land at time of execution of the sale deed
was agricultural in nature and it was forty
metres away from the highway. He has
submitted that the authorities have treated
the land as non-agricultural land on the
basis of another sale deed of an adjacent
land that is nearer to the highway. He has
further submitted that no spot verification
was carried out as per Rule 7(3)(c) of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Stamp
(Valuation
of
Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Rules"), which according to him
is mandatory as has been pronounced time
and again by this Court in various
judgments including Ajay Agarwal and
others v. Commissioner Lucknow and
others reported in 2023 (2) ADJ 561 (LB),
and Ram Khelawan alias Bachcha v.
State of U.P. and another reported in 2005
(2) AWC 1087. Lastly, counsel for the
petitioner submitted that at the relevant
point of time, the land in question was
agricultural in nature and there were no
structures or any activity apart from
agriculture being carried out on the said
land. He has relied upon the judgment of
the coordinate Bench of this Court in Raj
Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (WritC No.19644 of 2016 decided on April 13,
2023) and the Full Bench judgment of this
Court in Smt. Pushpa Sareen v. State of
U.P. reported in (2015) 0 Supreme (All)
132 to support his arguments.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel has also relied upon the
judgment in Smt. Pushpa Sareen's case
(supra) to indicate that the Collector has
the power to evaluate the value of a land
depending on the potential use of the said
land in question. He specifically relied
upon paragraph Nos.26 to 28 of the
aforesaid
judgement
to
buttress
his
argument. He has fairly submitted that the
spot verification was not carried out as per
the said Rule and no notice of the same was
given to the petitioner. He, however,
submits that the valuation carried out by the
Collector is in line with the principles
established in law and in keeping with the
potential use of the land in question.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

6. The Full Bench judgment of this
Court in Smt. Pushpa Sareen's case
(supra)
penned
by
Hon'ble
D.Y.
Chandrachud, C.J. (as he then was) has, in
great detail, dealt with the power of
Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (as applicable in the State
of U.P.). The relevant paragraphs of the
said judgment are provided below:

"26.
The
true
test
for
determination by the Collector is the
market value of the property on the date of
the
instrument
because,
under
the
provisions of the Act, every instrument is
required to be stamped before or at the time
of execution. In making that determination,
the Collector has to be mindful of the fact
that the market value of the property may
vary from location to location and is
dependent upon a large number of
circumstances having a bearing on the
comparative advantages or disadvantages
of the land as well as the use to which the
land can be put on the date of the execution
of the instrument.

27. Undoubtedly, the Collector is
not permitted to launch upon a speculative
1962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inquiry about the prospective use to which
a land may be put to use at an uncertain
future date. The market value of the
property has to be determined with
reference to the use to which the land is
capable reasonably of being put to
immediately or in the proximate future. The
possibility of the land becoming available
in the immediate or near future for better
use and enjoyment reflects upon the
potentiality of the land. This potential has
to be assessed with reference to the date of
the execution of the instrument. In other
words, the power of the Collector cannot be
unduly circumscribed by ruling out the
potential to which the land can be
advantageously deployed at the time of the
execution of the instrument or a period
reasonably proximate thereto. Again the
use to which land in the area had been put
is a material consideration. If the land
surrounding the property in question has
been put to commercial use, it would be
improper to hold that this is a circumstance
which should not weigh with the Collector
as a factor which influences the market
value of the land.

28. The fact that the land was put
to a particular use, say for instance a
commercial purpose at a later point in
time, may not be a relevant criterion for
deciding the value for the purpose of stamp
duty, as held by the Supreme Court in State
of U.P. and others vs. Ambrish Tandon and
another11. This is because the nature of the
user is relateable to the date of purchase
which is relevant for the purpose of
computing the stamp duty. Where, however,
the potential of the land can be assessed on
the date of the execution of the instrument
itself, that is clearly a circumstance which
is
relevant
and
germane
to
the
determination of the true market value. At
the same time, the exercise before the
Collector has to be based on adequate
material and cannot be a matter of
hypothesis or surmise. The Collector must
have material on the record to the effect
that there has been a change of use or other
contemporaneous sale deeds in respect of
the adjacent areas that would have a
bearing on the market value of the property
which
is
under
consideration.
The
Collector, therefore, would be within
jurisdiction in referring to exemplars or
comparable sale instances which have a
bearing on the true market value of the
property which is required to be assessed.
If the sale instances are comparable, they
would also reflect the potentiality of the
land
which
would
be
taken
into
consideration in a price agreed upon
between a vendor and a purchaser."

7. Upon a perusal of the judgment in
Smt. Pushpa Sareen's case (supra), it is
clear that the potential of the land can be
assessed on the date of execution of the
instrument
for
determination
by
the
Collector of the true market value.
However, this exercise by the Collector has
to be based on adequate material and
cannot be a matter of hypothesis or
surmise. The Collector must have material
on record to come to a finding as to the
potential use of the land and only thereafter
assess the same on such potential use. In
the event there is no material present, the
Collector cannot base his valuation only on
conjectures and surmises.

8. One may further look into the
judgment of the coordinate Bench of this
Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra)
wherein the coordinate Bench has held that
spot inspection has to be carried out in
terms of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules.
Furthermore, the Court held that burden of
proof is on the State to prove that deficient
stamp duty has been paid by the petitioner
3 All. M/s Uttranchal Automobile (P)Ltd., Meerut Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. & Ors. 1963
and the valuation of the land in question
has to be made on concrete grounds. The
relevant paragraphs of Raj Kumar's case
(supra) are delineated below:

17. Moreover, had the allegation of the
State been to the effect that though the land
was purchased for agricultural purposes,
but its user was immediately changed and
on the date of sale deed, it was being used
for any other purpose like, industrial,
commercial
or
even
residential,
the
situation would have been different. Even in
those situations, spot inspection at the
relevant point of time was a necessity, but,
admittedly, in the present case, no spot
inspection has been carried out. Necessity
of spot inspection and its mandatory
nature, with reference to Rule 7 (3) (c) of
the aforesaid Rules of 1997, has been
reiterated, time and again by this Court in
various authorities including Ajay Agarwal
and others vs Commissioner Lucknow and
others, reported in 2023 (2) ADJ 561 (LB),
and Ram Khelawan alias Bachcha vs State
of U.P. and another, reported in 2005 (2)
AWC 1087.
*****

19.
The
observations/findings
recorded in the orders impugned are also
contrary to principles of burden of proof
particularly, in a case where proceedings
arise out of a fiscal statute. Once the State
was proceeding to impose deficient stamp
duty upon the petitioner, the entire burden
lay upon the State to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the petitioner made
some concealment at the time of getting the
sale deed executed in his favour or that
within a close proximity of dates, the user
of the land in dispute was changed so as to
levy additional stamp duty. Nothing to this
effect has been brought on record, rather,
not only the findings recorded in the orders
impugned are contrary to the provisions of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable
in the State of U.P. as well as U.P. Stamp
(Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, but
certainly contrary to the law consistently
laid down by this Court.

9. In the present case, indubitably no
spot verification was carried out as per the
Rules. Such being the case, the burden of
proof that rested solely on the Revenue to
indicate the nature of the land and the
potential use of the land was not discharged
properly.
Furthermore,
the
reasoning
provided by the authorities below for
valuing the land on the basis of nonagricultural cannot be sustained as the same
is based on another piece of the land that
was much closer to the highway and certain
constructions were made on that piece of
land.

10. It is to be noted that the land,
which was used as the base, was not being
used for any agricultural purpose while at
the time of execution of the sale deed, the
land in question before this Court was
being used for agricultural purposes.

11. In light of the above findings, I
am of the view that the authorities below
have erred in law and on facts in
determining the value of the land basing the
same as a land for non-agricultural
purposes.

12. Accordingly, the impugned orders
dated February 3, 2011 and October 17,
2011 are quashed and set aside. The
amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner
for the deficient stamp duty, should be
returned to the petitioner along with
interest @ 4 per cent within six weeks from
date.
1964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. With the above direction, the writ
petition is allowed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1964
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 13146 of 2022

M/s Tanya Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ali Jamal Khan, Smt. Mamta Singh, Sri
Mukesh Chandra Gupta, Sri Shubham Prakash
Gupta, Sri Rakesh Pande (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Jagannath Maurya, Sri Shiv Prakash Gupta

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Urban
Planning
and
Development Act,1973-Sections 41(3) &
27(1)-The petitioner is engaged in the
business of meat processing-his meat
processing plant located on agricultural
land received a conditional No Objection
Certificate in 2013 from the District
Magistrate
Meerut-the
petitioner
constructed the plant without obtaining
the necessary approvals or addressing
objections raised by the Development
Authority-The road leading to the plant
did not meet the minimum 24 meter width
required under bye-law 2.3.2 for industrial
establishments located more than 400
meters from the main highway-The court
held that the petitioner failed to comply
with the legal requirements including
prior approval of the map and adherence
to bye laws concerning road width-the
actions of the development authority and
the state government found to be lawful
and justified.(Para 1 to 52)

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Nazir Ahmad Vs King-Fmperor AIR 1936 PC
253

2. Dhananjaya Reddy Vs St.of Kar.(2001) 4 SCC
9

3. Commr. of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs Anjum
M.H. Ghaswala (2002) 1 SCC 633

4. St. of Jhar. & ors. Vs Ambay Cements & anr.
(2005) 1 SCC 368,

5. Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. &
ors.. Vs St. of Assam & ors., JT (2009)14 SC 654

6. Shanti Sports Club & anr..Vs U.O.I. & ors.
(2009) 15 SCC 705

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. Through this writ petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated
28.03.2022 passed by respondent no. 1
under Section 41(3) of U.P. Urban Planning
and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter
referred as "the Act of 1973") and order
dated
06.03.2021
passed
by
Meerut
Development
Authority
(hereinafter
referred as "the Authority") exercising
power under Section 27(1) of the Act of
1973. The prayer has also been made for
directing
the
respondent-Development
Authority to remove the seal from the
petitioner's firm.

2. Facts leading to the present
case, are that petitioner is engaged in the
business of meat processing, after obtaining
license from Agriculture and Processed
Food
Product
Export
Development