# Mohd. Qasim Khan & Anr v. Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 829
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-07
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 7909 of 2016
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-qasim-khan-anr-v-chief-controlling-revenue-auth-ors-48352
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, -
Article 226 - Indian Stamp Act, - Section
47 A (3) - U.P. Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 - Rules 3, 6 & 7 -
Sale deeds executed in year 2008 -
instruments are undervalued - spot
inspection
carried
in
year
2008
-
Revenue authorities while determining
the stamp duty duly considered the
correct market value, nature and use of
the property - Notice issued - objection
- notice barred by limitation - not
considered - Statutory Appeal - writ
petition - notices served upon the
petitioner possible only in the year 2014
- doesn't means proceeding initiated
only
in
2014
-
writ
petition
dismissed.(Para - 19, 20, 21)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

4 All. Mohd. Qasim Khan & Anr. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. & Ors.
829
(2022)04ILR A829
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ-C No. 7909 of 2016

Mohd. Qasim Khan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Uma Shankar Sahai, Deo Prakash Srivastava,
Priti Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India, -
Article 226 - Indian Stamp Act, - Section
47 A (3) - U.P. Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 - Rules 3, 6 & 7 -
Sale deeds executed in year 2008 -
instruments are undervalued - spot
inspection
carried
in
year
2008
-
Revenue authorities while determining
the stamp duty duly considered the
correct market value, nature and use of
the property - Notice issued - objection
- notice barred by limitation - not
considered - Statutory Appeal - writ
petition - notices served upon the
petitioner possible only in the year 2014
- doesn't means proceeding initiated
only
in
2014
-
writ
petition
dismissed.(Para - 19, 20, 21)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Sudama Vs Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority UP Allahabad & ors.(Writ - C No.
19334/1998,

2. Rakesh Chandra Mittal & ors.Vs St. of UP &
anr. (2004 (5) AWC 3952),
3. Smt. Sushila Verma Vs St. of UP & ors.(2006
(2) AWC 1492),

4. Nar Singh Das Agrawal Vs Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority, BoR, & ors. (2007 (1) AWC
727),

5. Aniruddha Kumar Ashwini Kumar Vs Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority, BoR, & ors.
(2000 (3) AWC 2587),

6. Prakashwati Vs Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, BoR, & ors. (1996 AWC 1331),

7. Neelu Chopra & ors.Vs St. of UP & ors.(2008
(6) ALJ 507),

8. Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs St. of UP & ors.(2015
(33) LCD 1575),

9. Shakeel Ahmad Vs Additional Commissioner,
Judicial, Faizabad, 2019 (37) LCD 2423),

10. Wassi Ur Rehman & anr. Vs Commissioner
Moradabad Division & ors.(Writ - C No.
47533/2010 decided on 26.02.2015).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
State
Respondents.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that
the petitioners had bought two plots of land
situated in Village Obri Deeh, Pargana
Sadaullah Nagar, Tehsil Utraula, District
Balrampur
through
sale
deed
dated
17.03.2008
from
One
Shri
Ahmad
Rasheed. Plot No. 1697 admeasuring
0.2390 hectares was bought for total sale
consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- only, Plot
No. 1696 admeasuring as 0.2390 hectares
was also purchased which is adjacent land
through sale deed dated 05.03.2008, for a
sale consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- from
the same vendor i.e. Shri Ahmad Rasheed.
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No notice was ever served upon the
petitioner for initiation of proceedings
under Section 47A (3) of the Stamp Act till
2014. After six years from the date of the
sale deed i.e. on 15.11.2014, the Assistant
Commissioner (Stamp), Balrampur with
reference to a letter dated 20.10.2014 sent
by the District Collector carried out the
spot inspection of the land in question and
submitted his report. The petitioner having
been issued notice for the first time after
the report dated 15.11.2014 submitted his
objections,
but
the
same
were
not
considered.

3. It has been submitted that in the
impugned order mention has wrongly been
made that the proceedings were initiated on
the report of the Sub-Registrar, Utraula
dated 18.03.2008 which was approved by
the
Assistant
Inspector
General
(Registration) on 19.03.2008. Fraudulent
order sheet were prepared in the Court of
opposite
party
no.3
i.e.
Collector,
Balrampur showing that on 30.05.2008, the
case was put up for orders and date fixed
for 02.07.2008 for service of notice.
Thereafter, 77 dates had been fixed from
20.08.2008 till 10.02.2014 but no report
regarding
service
of
notice
on
the
petitioners
was
submitted
then
on
10.03.2014 an order was passed fixing
28.04.2014 for arguments. On 19.05.2014,
an order was passed for issuance of notice
to the petitioner again and date of
16.06.2014 was fixed. It was for the first
time after such date was fixed that notice
was
issued
to
the
petitioners.
The
petitioners put in appearance on 23.01.2014
and sought time for filing objections. Time
was granted and date of 08.09.2014 was
fixed for filing objections. The petitioners
filed
their
objections
on
20.09.2014
alongwith an application for spot inspection
to be done. Spot inspection was not done
and a fraudulent report submitted on
15.11.2014 on the basis of which the
impugned order was passed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
had submitted that under Section 47A of the
Stamp Act, if an instrument is undervalued
immediately after presentation of such
instrument and before accepting it for
registration, the Registrar/Registering Officer
shall require the person liable to pay stamp
duty, to pay deficient stamp duty and on
failure to do so return the instrument for
presenting again. Under Section 47A (3) of
the Act the Collector may, Suo motu, or on a
reference from any Court or from the
Commissioner of Stamps, or an Additional
Commissioner of Stamps, or a Deputy
Commissioner of Stamps, or an Assistant
Commissioner of Stamps, or any officer
authorised by the State Government in that
behalf, initiate proceedings with respect to
deficiency in payment of stamp within four
years from the date of registration of any
instrument, and examine the instrument with
regard to correctness of the market value of
the property and if, after such examination he
has reason to believe that the market value of
the such property has not been truly set forth
in the instrument, he may determine the
market value of the duty payable thereon.

5. It has been submitted that under the
Proviso of Section 47A(3), an action can be
initiated even after a lapse of four years
from the date of registration of instrument,
but
prior
permission
of
the
State
Government
is
required.
No
prior
permission has been taken, but the sale
deed executed in March, 2008 have been
questioned by means of notice issued in
November, 2014.

6. It has also been argued that under
Section 47-A of the Stamp Act the
4 All. Mohd. Qasim Khan & Anr. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. & Ors.
831
Collector must first find out the correct
market value of the property and to
determine the same he must carrt out an
inquiry, which should be in accordance
with Rule 7 of the U. P. Stamp (Valuation
of Property) Rules, 1997, which requires
that on receipt of reference, or where the
action is proposed to be taken Suo Motu
under Section 47-A, the Collector shall
issue notice to the parties to the instrument
to show cause within thirty days of the
receipt of such notice and he may admit
oral and documentary evidence, if any,
produced by the parties to the instrument
and to satisfy himself as to the correctness
of the market value of the property call for
any information from any public office or
authority or may inspect the property after
due notice to the parties, and after
considering the representation of the
parties, he shall determine the market value
of the property and the duty payable
thereon. If such market value is found to be
undervalued and the instrument not duly
stamped, necessary action can be taken in
respect of the same according to the
relevant provisions of the Act.

7. It has been submitted on the basis
of the pleadings on record that two
agricultural plots No. 1696 and 1697
admeasuing .02390 hectares each, were
bought by the petitioners, for agricultural
purposes at the rate of Rs. 1,75,000/- each
as sale consideration. On the date of sale
deed, the Collector's Circle Rate list of
2008 was applicable. The petitioners paid
25% extra because the land in question was
in the vicinity of Abadi and 25% more also
because the land is question was situated on
a Link road. The total valuation having
been calculated by the petitioners on the
basis of Collectors Circle Rate list of 2008,
the stamp duty at the rate of 8% on total
valuation was paid and also Registration
fee. The petitioners having paid additional
stamp duty to the extent of 25% + 25 %,
there was no deliberate under valuation of
the instrument. The petitioners' objections
regarding the land being agricultural in
nature were ignored only because the land
was situated adjacent to the Link road and
commercial establishments for example a
mobile talkies, which was disfunctional
was found to be existing on an adjacent
plot of land. The inspection having been
done after six years of the date of sale deed
was vitiated. Initially Circle Rate of Rs.
3,500/- for commercial land was proposed
to be levied, but later on land having been
determined as residential, Rs.2,200/- per
sqare meter was determined as the market
value/circle rate on the basis of which
deficiency in stamp duty of Rs. 3,94,640/-
+ a 10% penalty thereon of Rs. 39,464/-
was determined with liability to pay simple
interest at the Rate of 1.5% per month till
the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by
the order dated 27.04.2015, the petitioner
filed Stamp Appeal No. 72 of 2015-16 and
also Stamp Appeal No. 73 of 2015-16. The
petitioners raised all grounds regarding
delayed initiation of proceedings as also
wrong determination of value of land, but
the Chief Controller Revenue Authority,
Board of Revenue decided the Appeal on
irrelevant considerations, holding that the
land in question had been surrounded by
Commercial premises for example a road, a
playground, a girls school and a mobile
talkies.

8. It has been submitted by the
petitioners that after the Appeal was
rejected on 17.02.2016, this Court pleased
to pass an Interim Order on 02.05.2016 that
in case, the petitioners deposited a further
sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in addition to the 1/3
statutory amount already deposited for
admission
of
Appeal,
the
recovery
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings against the petitioners shall
remained stayed. The petitioners have
complied with such order and have
deposited the amount as a result, further
recovery
proceedings
have
remained
stayed.

9. Learned counsel for the State
Respondents has pointed out from the order
impugned that the sale deed were executed
with respect to two plots of land in March,
2008 and on 18 March, 2018 itself, an on
the Spot Inspection was carried out by the
Assistant Commissioner and a Report
submitted regarding under valuation of the
property. On the said Report a Reference
was made to the Collector. Notices were
issued to the petitioners and after such
notices
were
served
the
petitioners'
appeared and filed objections saying that
the property in question was inspected
without
associating
them
with
such
inspection. On the basis of such objections,
the Collector issued a letter on 20.10.2014
to the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp),
Balrampur for carrying out on the spot
inspection alongwith family members of
the petitioners and in their presence.
Consequently,
the
Assistant
Commissioner(Stamp) carried out the spot
inspection on 13.11.2014 and submitted his
report on 15.11.2014 which was filed as
Annexure-4 to the petition. With respect to
Plot No. 1696 admeasuring 0.239 hectares,
the sale had been carried out showing
agricultural rates of Rs.9,00,000/- per
hectares, the Circle Rate at the time of such
sale for commercial land was Rs.3,500/-
per square meter. In the Circle Rate list at
serial no.16 mention was made of location
of land near either a State or District or
painted Link road or Kharanja Marg and
accordingly, 70% or 50% or 25 % or 15%
respectively of additional value was to be
fixed. The land in question i.e. Plot No.
1696 was situated adjacent to a painted
road and also near Abadi and just adjacent
to such land was a touring Talkies, though
disfunctional. The land being discovered to
be commercial in nature in the initial on the
spot inspection carried out on 08.07.2008
reference of which has been made in the
Report dated 15.04.2008 it had correctly
been valued it on commercial rate of
Rs.3,500/- per square meter.

10. Similarly, Plot No. 1697 was
situated next to the same painted Link road
and a playground was situated towards
south and west of the plot, and a Stage was
also constructed for holding of public
functions towards south of such plot, and
towards north was the building of the old
touring
Talkies,
which
was
now
disfunctional. The land being situated in the
midst of Abadi and no agricultural
activities having been carried out either on
the said plots of land or on adjacent and
surroundings plots of land, and a girl
school situated next to it, it could not be
said that the land in question was
agricultural, therefore, the agricultural rate
of Rs.9,00,000/- per hectare was wrongly
mentioned
in
the
sale
deed.
The
commercial rate of 2008 circle list was
Rs.3,500/- per square meter and residential
rate was Rs.2,200/- per square meter. It was
proposed to impose residential rate of Rs.
2,200/- per square meter instead of the
initial proposal of imposing commercial
rate of Rs.3,500/- per square meter in the
report dated 15.11.2014.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has
placed
reliance
upon
judgment
rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Sudama vs. Chief
Controlling
Revenue
Authority
U.P.
Allahabad & Others in Writ C No.-19334
of 1998 where this Court relied upon a
4 All. Mohd. Qasim Khan & Anr. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. & Ors.
833
Division Bench judgement in Rakesh
Chandra Mittal and Others Vs. State of
U.P. and Another, 2004 (5) AWC 3952
that where no finding had been returned
with regard to the exact situation of land
and the inspection was done by the
Tehsildar after more than three and a half
year for the execution of sale deed the
market value determination much later on,
on
the
basis
of
any
subsequent
improvement or change in nature or user of
land resulting in enhanced market value
cannot be taken into account. Value of the
property on the date of the execution of the
documents alone can be considered for the
purpose of determination of proper stamp
duty.

12. The Coordinate Bench has also
placed reliance upon the judgment render in
Smt. Sushila Verma Vs. State of U.P. and
Others, 2006 (2) AWC 1492 and Nar Singh
Das Agrawal Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, Board of Revenue, Allahabad
and Others , 2007 (1) AWC 727 where
market value of agricultural land was held to
be on the basis of per hectare and not on basis
of
Circle
Rates
for
residential
plots
determined on per square meter basis. Just
because the land in question was situated next
to a road, it could not be inferred that it was
commercial in nature. The Court observed on
the basis of the facts of the particular case in
Sudama (Supra) that merely because the land
in dispute was 20 meters distant from the
residential area will not convert the land from
agricultural to residential or commercial land.
The Court had set aside the order passed by
the Additional District Magistrate (Finance &
Revenue) and had remitted the matter for
fresh consideration.

13. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has also placed reliance upon
the judgement passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of
Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar
Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
2000 (3) AWC 2587 and Paragraph 19, 20
and 21 thereof, wherein the Court had
observed that market value is to be
determined on the basis of value that would
satisfy the vendor, therefore, the question
of future potential cannot be a factor for
determining the market value of such land
for the purpose of stamp duty payable
under the Stamp Act. The vendee pays the
price that satisfying the vendor and on the
utility of the land as on the date of transfer
by the vendor and as such the land was an
agricultural land, it has to be treated as such
and the valuation has to be done
accordingly.
Whether
in
future
the
purchaser puts to the land into residential
use or changes the character is immaterial
for the payment of stamp duty.

14. The Court had placed reliance
upon Prakashwati Vs. Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue,
Allahabad, 1996 AWC 1331 whether the
Supreme Court had held that situation of a
property in an area close to a decent colony
could not by itself make it a part thereof,
and it should not be a factor for approach of
the authority in determining the market
value.

15. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has also placed reliance judgment
rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court in Neelu Chopra & Others vs. State
of U.P. and Others, 2008 (6) ALJ 507 and
paragraph 9, 10 and 11 thereof which refers
to limitation under Section 47-A (3) of the
Act for impounding an instrument or
initiation of proceedings of recovery of
deficiency in stamp duty saying that four
years period has to be completed from the
date of registration of the instrument. In the
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
said case, notice was issued on 26.03.1991
though sale deed was registered on
31.12.1984 i.e. after more than six years
from the date of execution of the
instrument. The Court did not find the
explanation given by the opposite parties in
the counter affidavit for initiation of
proceedings beyond the limitation of four
years as sufficient and had quashed the
proceedings.

16. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand, on the basis of judgment
rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in
Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs. State of U. P. and
Others, 2015 (33) LCD 1575 has argued
that the question with regard to correct
valuation
of
property
only
on
the
assumption that the same is likely to be
used for commercial purpose or presumed
future prospective use of the land, was
considered including the question of
declaration under Section 143 of the
U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act and in the absence
thereof a presumption arising in favour of
the party that the land was used for
agricultural purposes. The Full Bench
observed that the power under Section 47A was to be used by the Collector to
determine the correct "market value" of the
property and the Collector has the power to
fix valuation of the plot taking into account
the future prospective use of the land. It
held that stamp duty is a levy which is
imposed not on the transaction but on the
instrument. The Court observed that its
attention had been drawn to certain
judgements of Single Judges of the Court
which had taken the view that the market
value of the land could not be determined
with reference of the land to which the
buyers intends to put it in the future.
However, the Court observed that the
power under Section 47-A is for the
Collector to determine the actual market
value of the property, he is not bound either
by the value as described in the instrument
or for that matter the value as discernible
on the basis of the rules. It observed in
paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 thus:-

"27. 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 I on 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.

28. 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
4 All. Mohd. Qasim Khan & Anr. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. & Ors.
835
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.

29. 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 v. 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."

17. Learned counsel for the State
Respondents has also placed reliance upon
judgement rendered by Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Shakeel Ahmad Vs.
Additional
Commissioner,
Judicial,
Faizabad, 2019 (37) LCD 2423 whether
this Court had considered the judgement
rendered by the Full Bench in Smt. Pushpa
Sareen(Supra) and observed in paragraphs
11, 12 and 13 thus:

"11. It is no doubt true that several
Division Benches of this Court before the
Full Bench decision in the case of Pushpa
Sareen (supra) was rendered on 12.2.2015,
had
held
that
future
potential
for
residential or commercial use of the
property cannot lead to a presumption that
the sale deed has been deliberately
undervalued, if the land in question
continues to be recorded as agricultural
land and no declaration under Section 143
of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for change of land
user has been made by the competent
authority. However, even from a perusal of
the Full Bench rendered by this Court on
several questions referred by the Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority to it, it is
apparent that the Full Bench while
answering the second question i.e. whether
the Collector, Stamps has power to fix the
valuation of a plot on the assumption that
the same is likely to be used for commercial
purposes, and whether the presumed future
prospective use of the land can be a
criterion for valuation by the Collector?,
has observed in Paragraph nos.20 to 29 of
the decision that a Collector under the
second clause of Section 47-A of the Act is
empowered to determine the market value
of the property. The Collector in making
that determination is not bound either by
the value as described in the instrument or
for that matter, the value as discernible
(circle rate), as an obligation is cast upon
the Collector to properly ascertain the true
value of the property for which, conveyance
has been registered and he is not bound by
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the apparent tenor of the instrument. He
can even decide the real nature of the
transaction and value of such property,
ignoring apparent mention therein of its
nature either as a lease deed, sale deed or
a partnership deed. The Collector can look
into the material placed before him and
even conduct an enquiry to ascertain what
is the likely value of such property in the
area surrounding the property in question.
If such enquiry gives him material to test,
prima facie, whether the description of
valuation in an instrument is proper or not,
he may issue notice and thereafter, hear the
parties and then pass appropriate orders.
The Collector while determining the true
value of an instrument may also look into
the circle rate, but the circle rate does not
take away the right of a person to show that
the property in question is correctly valued
as he gets an opportunity in case of under
valuation to prove it before the Collector
after reference is made.

12. The determination may be made on
the basis of the market value of the
property on the date of the instrument and
the Collector should 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 of the land to
which, the land can be put on the date of
execution of the instrument. However, the
Collector cannot launch upon a speculative
enquiry about the prospective use to which,
the land may be put to use at an uncertain
future date, but the market value of the
property can be determined with reference
to the use to which the land is capable
reasonably of being put to use 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 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."

13. In Para-28 of the judgment, the
Hon'ble Full Bench has referred to the
judgment rendered by the Supreme Court
in the case of State of U.P. and others v.
Ambrish Tandon and another, (2012) 5
SCC 566, and has observed that 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
4 All. Mohd. Qasim Khan & Anr. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Auth. & Ors.
837
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."

18. Learned counsel for the State
Respondent has pointed out from the
counter affidavit, a judgement rendered by
a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Wassi
Ur
Rehman
and
another
Vs.
Commissioner Moradabad Division and
Others in Writ C. No. 47533 of 2010
decided
on
26.02.2015
wherein
the
Coordinate Bench had considered earlier
judgements rendered by the Coordinate
Bench and had observed that the person
presenting the instrument is required to
disclose the nature of economic activity,
industrial development, if any, prevailing in
the locality where the property is situated
and and to mention any other special
feature affecting the value of the property
as per Rule 3 and Rule 6 of the Stamp
Rules, 1997. The Court observed that the
land being only 720 square meter (in the
instant case land is around 2,093 square
meter) it was highly unlikely that such land
was to be used for agricultural purposes the
petitioner had not filed any exemplar to
show that agricultural activity is the
predominant activity in the vicinity where
the property was situated. Merely, because
the property was recorded as agricultural
property and no declaration under Section
143 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act was made, it
could not be said that the property did not
have commercial potential on the date of
execution of sale deed.

19. In some and substance the view
that has now been crystallized after the
decision of the Full Bench of this Court is
that it is for the Collector to determine
the correct market value of the land not
on the basis of any declaration under
Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act but
on the basis of nature and use of the
property as actually determined on the
spot, coupled with the predominant
activity in the locality where the property
is situated.

20. This Court having considered the
judgements rendered by the Coordinate
Bench and also by the Full Bench of this
Court finds from a perusal of this sale
deed filed as Annexure to the petitions that
the land in question was not bought for the
purpose of carrying out agricultural
activity,
it
had
been
bought
for
commercial purposes. With regard to the
specific plea raised by the petitioner that
no notice was ever served upon him and
therefore
it
can
be
presumed
that
proceedings were initiated only in 2014
and thus barred by limitation, this Court
has found, perusal of pleadings on record
including the orders impugned, and the
report
dated
15.11.2014,
that
the
proceedings were initiated on the basis of
an on spot inspection carried out on
08.04.2008, the reference itself was made
on 15.04.2008. Just because the petitioner
avoided service till 2014, it cannot be said
that the proceedings were initiated in
2014.

21. The petitioner has not disputed in
his petitions the actual location of the
plots in question and on the spot
inspection report which was carried out in
his presence on 15.11.2014. The land
being commercial in nature. This Court
found
no
good
ground
to
show
interference in the orders impugned.

22. These petitions stand dismissed.

23. No order as to costs.
----------
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)04ILR A838
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCNOW 04.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 11395 of 2017

Sec. Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court, Faizabad &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Saryu Prasad Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shobh Nath Pandey

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, - Payment of Wages Act, - U.P.
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Sections 2 (K)
& 33(C)(2), - U.P. Cooperative Societies Act
- Section 70 - Petitioner filed application
before the prescribed Authority under
payment of wages Act - for payment of
difference of wages - Award was passed &
get finality when awarded amount was paid
- respondent preferred an application before
the Labour Court as Industrial Dispute -
impugned order was passed - it is a settled
law that in case of a dispute between the
cooperative societies and its members,
Labour court would not have its jurisdiction
- impugned order suffers with lack of
jurisdiction - writ petition allowed -
impugned order set aside.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Additional
Labour Commissioner & ors.(2007 Vol. 11 SCC
756),

2. Prabhu Dayal Vs Sahkari Samiti Mujuri Vikas
Khand & ors.(2008 Vol. 4 SCC 34),
3. K. A. Annamma Vs Secretary, Cochin
cooperative Hospital Society Ltd. (2018 Vol. 2
SCC 729),

4. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
Vs A. Rajappa & ors.(AIR 1978 SC 548) ,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Shobh Nath Pandey, the
counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 17.04.2017
passed by the labour court in exercise of
the powers under section 33(C)(2) of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the
respondent
claiming
himself
to
be
employed with the petitioner filed an
application under the Payment of Wages
Act alleging that the wages paid to the
petitioner were less than the wages to
which the petitioner was entitled and by
means of the order dated 29.03.2004, the
authority under the payment of wages act
determined that the petitioner was paid
wages less by Rs.1077/- and accepted the
contention of the respondent for payment
of difference of payment of wages for the
period December 2001 to April 2002 and
thus passed an award directing the
petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.21,740/-.
The said award was never challenged and
the admitted position as of now is that the
petitioner has been paid the amount as
awarded by the prescribed authority under
the Payment of Wages Act. After the said
award,
the
respondent
preferred
an
application under section 33(C)(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act claiming that once
the wages were determined by means of the
order dated 29.03.2004, for the subsequent