# Mohd. Ashif Khan & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1537
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-30
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 26636 of 2012
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-ashif-khan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51743
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Indian Stamp Act,1899 -Petitioners through
sale deed purchased a piece of land-paid stamp
duty as per the circle rate prevailing in the area
applicable for agricultural land-an inspection of
the plot was conducted -report reflects that
plotting activities are being carried out in the
surrounding of the plot- and also another sale
deed from the same plot was executed on which
the stamp duty based on circle rate applicable
to the residential area was paid-this fact cannot
be ignored by the authorities below while
determining the nature of the land on the date
of execution of the sale deed.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Mohd. Ashif Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1537
the judgements cited by the petitioner and
pass a reasoned order on the same, which
has clearly not been done in the present
case. The authorities are directed to be far
more cautious in their approach in quasi
judicial activities being carried out by them.

9. In light of the above findings,
impugned orders dated November 18, 2022
and March 13, 2023 are quashed and set
aside.

10. The instant writ petition is
allowed in aforesaid terms. Consequential
reliefs to follow.

11. The amount that has been
deposited by the petitioner is directed to be
refunded to the petitioner within a period of
six weeks from date along with interest at
the rate of 5% from the date of deposit.

12. There shall be no order as to the
costs.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1537
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ -C No. 26636 of 2012

Mohd. Ashif Khan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Neeraj Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Indian Stamp Act,1899 -Petitioners through
sale deed purchased a piece of land-paid stamp
duty as per the circle rate prevailing in the area
applicable for agricultural land-an inspection of
the plot was conducted -report reflects that
plotting activities are being carried out in the
surrounding of the plot- and also another sale
deed from the same plot was executed on which
the stamp duty based on circle rate applicable
to the residential area was paid-this fact cannot
be ignored by the authorities below while
determining the nature of the land on the date
of execution of the sale deed.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Manorama Vs. Board of Revenue/CCA of
Revenue and Stamp Ald and others, 2022
Lawsuit (All) 1661

2. Ajay Bahadur Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
2023 (12) ADJ 201

3. Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs. State of U.P., 2015
(3) ADJ 136 (FB).

4. Smt. Saroj Verma Vs. State of U.P. and
Others, 2022 (5) ADJ 368 (LB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Rishi Kumar, Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. The petitioners by means of the
present writ petition have assailed the order
dated 22.03.2010 passed by respondent
no.3-Collector Stamp/District Magistrate,
Shajahanpur in Stamp Case No.67/24/2009,
under Section 47A (3) of the Indian Stamp
Act determining the deficiency of stamp
duty to the tune of Rs.14,53,410/- and,
imposition of penalty of Rs.1590/- and
interest at the rate of 1.5% per month, and
the order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the
respondent no.2-Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority/Board
of
Revenue
U.P.
at
1538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Allahabad in Stamp Appeal No.50/2011-12
affirming
the
order
passed
by
the
respondent no.3-Collector Stamp.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the
petitioners
through
sale
deed
No.8006/2009,
dated
13.04.2009,
purchased a piece of land measuring area
1.166 hectares i.e. 11,660 sq. meters from
plot No.64 having a total area of 2.485
hectares situated in the village Northern
Area of the City outside Chungi near
Village Chinnaur for agricultural purpose
and paid stamp duty as per the circle rate
prevailing in the area applicable for
agricultural land i.e. Rs.9,42,000/- per
hectare (hereinafter referred to as the 'plot').

4. According to the petitioners, the
distance of the plot purchased by them
from the road is about 1 kilometre and the
Abadi is also about 1/2 kilometre from the
plot. Since the use of the plot on the date of
the sale deed was agricultural, therefore,
the petitioners paid the stamp duty of
Rs.77,000/-.

5. It appears that an inspection of
the plot was conducted by the Sub
Registrar,
Sadar,
Shahjahanpur
on
11.08.2009. He found that Gata No.64 is
situated on the road connecting to brickklin (Bhatta), and the bricks have been
stored on the plot, and plotting activities
were also being carried out over the plot.
The report of the Sub-Registrar further
stated that another sale deed No.3613/09
was executed from the same plot. In the
sale deed No.3613/09, stamp duty was paid
as per the circle rate applicable to the
residential area. The Assistant Collector
(Stamp) registered a case based on the
report of the Sub Registrar, under Section
47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act as case
No.67/24/2009 and issued notice to the
petitioners calling upon them to submit an
objection about the deficiency in payment
of stamp duty.

6. The petitioners submitted an
objection contending inter-alia that the
report of the Sub-Registrar is based upon
incorrect facts. It is also stated that the plot
is an agricultural plot and is surrounded by
agricultural land, therefore, the petitioners
have paid the correct stamp duty as per the
circle rate applicable to the agricultural
land.

7. The Collector (Stamp) rejected
the objection of the petitioners by recording
a finding that the stamp duty as per
residential area was paid in respect to
another sale deed No.3613/09 purchased
from the same plot which establishes that
the residential activities are being carried
out in the vicinity of the plot, and the
petitioners have submitted incorrect map
along with the sale deed to pay insufficient
stamp duty. Accordingly, he concluded that
the petitioners are liable to pay the stamp
duty applicable to the residential land.
Consequently, he determined the deficiency
of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 14,53,410/-
. He further imposed a penalty of Rs.1590/-
and interest at the rate of 1.5% per month
on the deficient stamp duty.

8. The order passed by the
Collector Stamp was assailed by the
petitioners in statutory appeal being Stamp
Appeal No.50/2011-12. In the memo of
appeal, petitioners have specifically stated
that the report of the Sub-Registrar was
ex- parte and no spot inspection was
carried out by the Collector Stamp before
determining the stamp duty. It is further
stated that the sale deed No.3613/09 is not
relevant for the determination of the
present case.
4 All. Mohd. Ashif Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1539
9. The Respondent no.2-Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority rejected the
appeal of the petitioners vide order dated
25.04.2012 by recording a finding that
though the petitioners have filed Khasra of
the plot for Fasli Year 1415, 1416, 1417
which corresponds to the Year 2008, 2009
& 2010 which reflects that the crop of
wheat and paddy were sown on the plot.
However, he did not consider the Khasra on
the ground that the plot is a big plot having
an area of 2.485 hectares whereas the plot
purchased by the petitioners is 1.166
hectares, and Khasra does not establish that
the agricultural activity is being carried on
over the area 1.166 hectare of plot
purchased by the petitioners, and since
another sale deed No. 3613/09 out of the
same plot was executed on which the stamp
duty applicable to the residential area has
been paid, therefore, it cannot be denied
that the land has a potential of residential
land. Consequently, he held that the
Collector (Stamp) had correctly determined
the stamp duty.

10. Challenging the aforesaid
orders, learned counsel for the petitioners
has contended that the impugned order
cannot be sustained since there is noncompliance with Rule 7(3)(C) of Uttar
Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property),
Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules, 1997'). It is submitted that except
the report of the Sub-Registrar, there was
no evidence on record to conclude that any
residential activity was being carried out on
the
plot,
and
therefore,
in
such
circumstances, it was incumbent upon the
Collector Stamp to conduct an inspection
as contemplated under the Rules, 1997 after
giving due notice to the petitioners, and
since, in the instant case it has not been
done by the Collector, therefore, the orders
impugned are per se illegal. He has placed
reliance upon the judgment of this Court in
the case of Smt. Saroj Verma Vs. State of
U.P. and Others, 2022 (5) ADJ 368 (LB).
He has further submitted that on the date of
execution of the sale deed, the plot was an
agricultural plot and while determining the
stamp duty, the future potentiality of the
land is not to be considered or looked into
and the stamp duty is to be paid as per the
nature of the land on the date of execution
of the sale deed.

11. It is submitted that in the
instant case, since the plot was an
agricultural plot, therefore, the correct
stamp duty has been paid by the petitioners
as applicable to the agricultural plot and the
authority below failed to consider this
aspect of the matter. Accordingly, it is
submitted that the impugned orders are
liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
In support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the judgment of this Court in
the case of Manorama Vs. Board of
Revenue/CCA of Revenue and Stamp Ald
and others, 2022 Lawsuit (All) 1661.

12. It is further submitted that in a
proceeding under the Stamp Act, the
burden is upon the State to prove that
correct stamp duty has not been paid on the
instrument, and since the State has failed to
establish that on the date of execution of
sale deed, the plot was a residential plot,
therefore, the orders impugned cannot be
sustained. In support of his submissions, he
has placed reliance upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Ajay Bahadur Vs.
State of U.P. and Others, 2023 (12) ADJ
201.

13. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel would contend that in the instant
case, the report of the Sub Registrar reflects
that another sale deed No.3613/09 executed
1540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from the same plot, the stamp duty as
applicable to the residential plot was paid
and this fact alone is sufficient to conclude
that on the date of execution of sale deed,
the land has the potential of residential use
and the Collector Stamp has rightly
concluded that there is deficiency to the
tune of Rs.14,53,410/-.It is submitted that
the fact that the sale deed No.3613/09 from
the same plot was executed, the stamp duty
applicable to the residential area had been
paid on the said instrument, and sale deed
No.3613/09 has not been denied, therefore,
the State has discharged its burden of
proving that on the date of execution of
sale deed, the land has the potential of
residential use. He further contends that it
is not a case where the authority below has
relied upon only the ex-parte report of the
Sub
Registrar,
but
also
another
documentary evidence i.e. sale deed
No.3613/09 which was in respect of a plot
carved out from the same plot from which
the petitioners have purchased the plot, and
which instrument has not been denied by
the petitioners, therefore, there was enough
evidence on record to conclude that the plot
has the potentiality of residential use and in
such view of the fact, the Collector Stamp
didn't need to conduct any enquiry
contemplated under the Rules, 1997.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the
petitioners have failed to make out any case
for interference by this Court and the writ
petitions lack merit and deserve to be
dismissed.

14. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

15. The facts as emanates from the
record are that the petitioners purchased a
plot having an area of 1.66 hectares by sale
deed No.8006/09 dated 13.04.2009 from
plot No.64 having an area of 2.485 hectares
situated in the Village Chinnaur for
agriculture purposes. An inspection of the
plot was conducted by the Sub-Registrar
and he submitted the report which is
reproduced below:-

"श्रीमान जी,
उपरोि वििेख द्वारा अन्तररत समपवत्त
िाम धचनौर के िगे िुए म्स्र्थत िै जो िाम
धचनौर से गगज के भट्र्े को जाने िािे मागज पर
म्स्र्थत गार्ा सं०64 का अंि िै म्जसमें मौके पर
ईंर्े गडी िुई िै तर्था प्िाहर्ंग िो रिी िै म्जसमें
कुि प्िार्ों की नींि भी भरी जा रिी िै। इसी
गार्ा में से आिासीय दर से बैनामा वििेख सं०
3618/09 िुआ िै म्जसमें धनकर्तम म्स्र्थत िाम
धचनौर की आिासीय दर से मूलयांकन हकया
गया िै। "

16. Perusal of the report reflects
that the Sub-Registrar while inspecting the
plot found that the plotting activities are
being carried out in the surrounding of the
plot of the petitioners and also another sale
deed No.3613/09 from the same plot i.e.
khasra No.64 was executed on which the
stamp duty based on circle rate applicable
to
the
residential
area
was
paid.
Accordingly, a case under Section 47A of
the Indian Stamp Act was registered against
the petitioners, and a notice was issued.

17. In the instant case, though the
report of the Sub-Registrar was indeed an
ex-parte report, and after institution of
proceeding under Section 47 A (3) of the
Indian Stamp Act, no inspection was
conducted by the Collector (Stamp) as
contemplated under the Rule 7 (3) (C) of
4 All. Mohd. Ashif Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1541
the Rules, 1997, but in the present case,
there is an additional factor which needs to
be
noticed
that
another
sale
deed
No.3613/09 of a plot which was carved out
from the same plot from which the
petitioners
purchased
the
plot
was
executed in which stamp duty chargeable
to residential area was paid. The fact that
the sale deed No.3613/09 was executed
from the same plot i.e. plot No.64 from
which the petitioners have also purchased
the plot, and the fact that the stamp duty
applicable to residential land has been
paid at the time of execution of sale deed
No.3613/09
is
not
denied
by
the
petitioners and is admitted fact between
the parties.

18. In the light of the aforesaid
fact, now the Court proceeds to consider
the arguments advanced by the respective
counsel.

19. So far as the first argument of
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
regarding the issue of non-compliance of
Rule 7 (3) (C) of the Rules, 1997 is
concerned, this Court may note that the
power under Rule 7 (3) (C) of the Rules,
1997 conferred upon the Collector is only
discretionary and is not mandatory in
cases where there is other evidence on
record from which nature of the land on
the date of execution of the sale deed can
be determined. Though it is true that the
Collector is conferred with the power to
do spot inspection of the property under
Rule 7 (3) (C) of the Rules, 1997, the said
power is to be exercised depending upon
the facts of each case. The Collector while
determining the deficiency of stamp duty is
bound to follow Rule 7 (3) (C) of the
Rules, 1997 where there is no evidence on
record to determine the nature of the land
on the date of execution of the sale deed,
since the ex-parte report of the SubRegistrar cannot be relied upon against the
assessee inasmuch as placing reliance on
such report would violate the principles of
natural justice.

20. The judgment of this Court in
the case of Smt. Saroj Verma (supra)
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners has been rendered in a fact
situation where the Collector Stamp has
placed reliance upon the ex-parte report of
the Sub-Registrar, and there was no other
evidence on record which could establish
the nature of the land on the date of
execution of sale deed, and in such
circumstances, this Court held that the
Collector Stamp was bound to comply with
Rule 7 (3) (C) of the Rules, 1997 to
determine the stamp duty. This judgment is
not applicable in the facts of the present
case because of the admitted fact between
the parties that on the sale deed No.3613/09
in respect of a plot carved out from the
same plot from which petitioners' plot has
been taken out, stamp duty applicable to
the residential plot has been paid. This
instrument itself is sufficient to determine
the potentiality of land that the land has
potential for residential use on the date of
execution of the sale deed.

21. So far as the other argument of
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
regarding burden of proof is concerned,
there is no quarrel to the proposition of law
that the burden is upon the State to
establish by leading cogent evidence on
record that incorrect stamp duty has been
paid on an instrument as has been held by
this Court in the case of Ajay Bahadur
(supra), but in the instant case, the State has
discharged its burden by placing reliance
upon the sale deed No.3613/09, which
instrument is not denied and on the said
1542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sale deed stamp duty applicable to
residential plot has been paid.

22. Now, coming to the last
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners the potentiality of the land on
the date of execution of the sale deed is to
be seen and no future potentiality of the
land is to be considered while determining
the stamp duty. This Court may note that
there is also no quarrel to the aforesaid
proposition as has been held by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Manorama (supra) wherein this Court
has also considered and reproduced in
paragraph no.13 paragraphs no. 26 to 28 of
Full Bench judgement of this Court in the
case of Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs. State of
U.P., 2015 (3) ADJ 136 (FB).

23. However, the facts of the
present case are different from the facts in
the case of Manorama (supra). In
paragraphs nos.14 to 16 of the said
judgement, this Court records reasons for
holding the order passed by the authority
are not sustainable in law. Paragraphs no.14
to 16 are reproduced herein-below:-

"14. In the present case except the
Naib Tehsildar report dated 06.11.1995,
revenue record and the sale deed in
question there was no evidence on record to
hold that land in dispute is not an
agricultural land as such the impugned
orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law
in which on the point of future potential of
the land without any basis the stamp duty
paid by the petitioner was found deficient.
15. The case law cited by learned
counsel for the petitioner in Chotey Lal
(Supra) is also applicable in the present
controversy in which the full bench
decision rendered in Smt. Pushpa Sarin
(Supra) has been also considered.
16. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as ratio
law laid down in Smt. Pushpa Sarin (supra)
and Chhotey Lal (Supra) the impugned
order dated 29.01.1996 passed by the
Additional Collector and order dated
14.05.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue
Allahabad cannot be sustained in the eye of
law as such the same are hereby set aside.
The writ petition stands allowed. No order
as to costs."

24. The reading of para-14 reflects
that except the report of Naib Tehsildar
dated 06.11.1995, there was no other
evidence on record to conclude that the
land in question is not agricultural. In the
instant case, it is not solely the report of the
Sub-Registrar but also, there is sale deed
No.3613/09 in respect of a plot which was
carved out from plot No.64, from which the
petitioners purchased the plot, in which the
stamp duty applicable to the residential
area was paid. This document is not denied
by the petitioners in the memo of appeal or
the writ petition.

25. At this juncture, it would be
apposite to have a glance at paragraphs
no.26, 27 & 28 of the Full Bench judgment
of this Court in the case of Pushpa Sareen
(supra) which are reproduced hereinbelow:-

"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
4 All. Mohd. Ashif Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1543
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
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
another (2012) 5 SCC 566. 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."

26. In the instant case, the law
postulated by the Full Bench in paragraph27 & 28 answers the contention advanced
by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that though the potentiality of the land is to
be seen on the date of execution of the sale
deed, but 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 be considered by the Collector
as a factor which influences the market
value of the land.

27. In the present case, sale deed
No.3613/09 was executed from plot No.64
on which the stamp duty applicable to
residential land has been paid. Once
execution of the sale deed No.3613/09 is
not denied by the petitioners nor the fact
1544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that stamp duty applicable to the residential
plot has been paid in the sale deed
No.3613/09, this fact cannot be ignored by
the authorities below while determining the
nature of the land on the date of execution
of the sale deed. The sale deed No.3613/09
which is in respect of plot which was part
of plot No.64 from which the petitioners
have purchased the plot reflects that the
plot purchased by the petitioners has the
potential to be used for the residential plot
on the date of execution of sale deed, and
in such view of the fact, this Court is of the
view that both the authorities below have
not committed any error in determining the
deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.14,53,410/-

28. It is also urged by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that another sale
deed No.8185/09 dated 04.08.2009 has
been executed from the same plot i.e. plot
no.64 on which the stamp duty applicable
to the agricultural land has been has been
paid. The said sale deed has been filed
along with the supplementary affidavit
dated
14.12.2022. Accordingly,
it
is
submitted that the State cannot act
arbitrarily and discriminate between the
two assessees identically circumstanced in
charging stamp duty.

29. The said argument in the
opinion of the Court is fallacious and is
incorrect. The sale deed No.8185/09 was
not placed before the authority below i.e.
either before the Collector (Stamp) or
before the appellate authority and this has
been placed for the first time in the writ
petition. This Court is not inclined to accept
the said sale deed as evidence inasmuch as
if it is treated to be evidence, then the
opportunity of hearing has to be given to
the respondents to explain under what
circumstances the instrument i.e. sale deed
No.8185/09
has
been
charged
on
agricultural basis. Secondly, the petitioners
have not stated whether any proceeding
under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act
has been drawn against the vendee of sale
deed No.8185/09. Thirdly, Article 14 of the
Constitution of India cannot come into play
to perpetuate any illegality, and in the
present case, there was sufficient material
before the authority below to determine
that the plot of the petitioners has the
potentiality of residential use on the date of
execution of sale deed, therefore, the
petitioners cannot take advantage of sale
deed No.8185/09.

30. Thus, for the reasons given
above, this Court finds that the writ petition
lacks merit. It is accordingly, dismissed
with no order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1544
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ-C No. 39170 of 2023

M/s Suddhtam Enterprises ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashutosh Tiwari, Sri Himanshu Srivastava, Sri
Madan Lal Srivastava, Sri Mukesh Prasad (Sr.
Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-an
e-tender-cum-e-auction
notice was issued on 11.09.2023 for
mining rights in banda district, covering
specific
plots-four
companies