# Narendra Singh and others v. State of U.P.and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 600
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-02-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36498 of 2003
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-singh-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40810
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Indian Stamp Act-Section 37/47A-Stamp
duty at the time of execution of sale
deed-petitioner
supplied
stamp
duty
much and more than what actually
required-demand of additional amount
alongwith penalty of Rs.10000/- on
assumption that in future the building
shall be used for commercial purposeheld-not justified in changing more
stamp duty that what has been already
given.

Held: Para 5

Merely on surmises that the said land
may be used for commercial purposes,
the value of the transaction has been
enhanced and deficiency of stamp duty
has been assessed, on which penalty has
also been directed to be paid. In the
absence of any proof of the petitioner
having paid a higher amount than that
shown in the sale deed or that as per the
circle rate for residential plot, the
respondents are not justified in charging
more stamp duty than that what has
already been paid.
2 All] Narendra Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others
601

## Text

600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
9. In the case of Bisheshwar Lal v.
Income Tax Officer, Gonda, (1970) 75
ITR 698, this Court had quashed the
penalty notices which were issued to the
petitioner between 1949 and 1961 in
respect of the assessment years 1944-45,
1945-46, 1946-47 and 1948-49 were kept
pending till 1963 holding that as the
department did not explain why the
proceedings could not be completed
during the interval of 14 years, the
proceedings were vexatious and amounted
to an abuse of the powers conferred on the
Income-tax Officer under Section 28
(1)(c) of the Act of 1922.

10. Applying the principles laid
down in the aforesaid cases to the facts of
the present case, we find that by no
stretch of imagination long period of 20
years can be said to be a reasonable time
for imposing penalty. The explanation
given
by
the
Department
for
the
inordinate delay did not amount to
reasonable cause. In this view of the
matter, we are considered opinion that the
Tribunal has not committed any error in
cancelling the penalty imposed under
Section 28 (1)(c) of the Act.

11. In view of the forgoing
discussion, we answer both the questions
referred to us in the affirmative i.e. In
favour of the assessee and against the
Revenue. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.02.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36498 of 2003

Narendra Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Sri Vishnu Priya

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Indian Stamp Act-Section 37/47A-Stamp
duty at the time of execution of sale
deed-petitioner
supplied
stamp
duty
much and more than what actually
required-demand of additional amount
alongwith penalty of Rs.10000/- on
assumption that in future the building
shall be used for commercial purposeheld-not justified in changing more
stamp duty that what has been already
given.

Held: Para 5

Merely on surmises that the said land
may be used for commercial purposes,
the value of the transaction has been
enhanced and deficiency of stamp duty
has been assessed, on which penalty has
also been directed to be paid. In the
absence of any proof of the petitioner
having paid a higher amount than that
shown in the sale deed or that as per the
circle rate for residential plot, the
respondents are not justified in charging
more stamp duty than that what has
already been paid.
2 All] Narendra Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others
601
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The petitioners purchased a plot
of land measuring 614.55 Square metres
situate at Delhi-Saharanpur road in
district Saharanpur for a consideration of
Rs.4,00,000/- only, on which the requisite
stamp duty of Rs.81,500/- was paid at the
market value assessed at Rs. 8,15,800/-,
which was on the basis of the circle rate
fixed by the Collector for residential area.
Thereafter the petitioners had also got
sanctioned a map from Saharanpur
Development Authority for construction
of residential house on the said plot.
Subsequently
on
28.9.2002,
the
Respondent no.3 issued notices to the
petitioners under section 37/47A/33 of the
Indian Stamp Act, to which the petitioners
filed their objections. By order dated
13.3.2003,
the
Respondent
no.3
Additional
Collector
(Finance
&
Revenue),
Saharanpur
rejected
the
objections of the petitioners and held that
the value of the property should be
assessed at the circle rate fixed for
commercial area, which was at Rs.
5,000/- per sq. metre and on such basis
assessed the value of the plot to be Rs.
30,73,000/,- on which stamp duty of
Rs.3,07,300/- was assessed to be payable.
After deducting the stamp duty of Rs.
81,500/- already paid by the petitioners,
the deficiency of the stamp duty payable
by the petitioners was held to be Rs.
2,25,800/-. On the said amount, a further
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was directed to be
paid as penalty. Such direction regarding
penalty was given only in the operative
portion of the order and nothing regarding
the s+ame had been mentioned in the
body of the order and as such the same
was done without discussing as to how
the said amount of penalty was arrived at.
Challenging the said order, the petitioners
filed an appeal before the Commissioner,
Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur which
has been dismissed by the Respondent
no.2 vide order dated 20.6.2003.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders
dated 13.3.2002 passed by Respondent
no.3 and 20.6.2003 passed by Respondent
no.2 the petitioners have filed this writ
petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have
been exchanged between the parties and
with consent of the learned counsel for
the parties this writ petition is being
disposed of at the admission stage itself.

4. The orders impugned in this writ
petition have been passed merely on the
ground that the plot of land purchased by
the petitioners has the potential of being
used for commercial purpose. It is not the
case of the respondents that the said plot
falls
within
the
area
declared
as
commercial area by the respondents or the
Saharanpur Development Authority or
that the same is being actually used for
commercial purpose. On the contrary, the
Development Authority had sanctioned
the plan for the said plot, which was for
residential
purposes.
The
authorities
below have merely observed that since the
land is situated on the main highway and
could be used for commercial purpose,
hence the circle rate for commercial plot
should be applied for assessing the market
value of the property in question.

5. The aforesaid reasons for
increasing the value of the property in
question do not appear to be justified.
What is to be seen is the value of the land
at the time of its purchase and not the
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
potentiality of the land or projected value
of the land. No doubt, the land may have
the potential of being used for commercial
purposes in future, but in case if the
person purchases a plot of land in a
residential area for residential purposes
(for which the sanctioned plan has also
been
passed
by
the
Development
Authority), the value of the same has to
be assessed as of a residential plot and not
as a commercial or industrial plot for
which purpose it may be used in future.
The stamp duty charged is on the value of
transaction for sale and not for the value,
which might be increased in future
because of the development of the area.
Here it is not the case of the respondents
that the petitioners have actually paid
higher amount for purchase of the said
plot. Merely on surmises that the said land
may be used for commercial purposes, the
value
of the
transaction has been
enhanced and deficiency of stamp duty
has been assessed, on which penalty has
also been directed to be paid. In the
absence of any proof of the petitioner
having paid a higher amount than that
shown in the sale deed or that as per the
circle rate for residential plot, the
respondents are not justified in charging
more stamp duty than that what has
already been paid. The impugned orders
having been passed merely on the
projected value of the plot on the basis
that it has potential for being used for
commercial purposes, is not justified and
is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, for the aforesaid
reasons, this writ petition stands allowed
and the impugned orders dated 20.6.2003
and 13.3.2003 passed by Respondent nos.
2 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed.
It is further provided that any amount
which has been deposited in pursuance of
the aforesaid orders shall be refunded to
the petitioners forthwith.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15451 of 2006

Constable 756 CP Charan Singh and
another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Satya Prakash Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
Police
Regulations-Reg.
525Transfer order-Petitioner working as
Police Constable civil Branch-Transferred
to arms branch by S.P.-objection without
sanction of Inspector General of Policecan not be transferred as they have
completed more than 10 years serviceheld-such order can not be illegal on the
ground of no want of sanction to the
sanction
by
I.G.-sanction
may
be
recorded on concerned file-not necessary
to mention in the order of Transferdirection issued to the I.G. to consider
and decide himself as the whether the
sanction be granted or not.

Held: Para 9, 10 and 11

In view of the aforesaid, the contention
raised on behalf of the petitioners that
they cannot be transferred from one
branch to another as they have put in
ten years of service as constable in Civil
Branch, cannot be accepted. This Court
holds that constables, who have put in
more than ten years of service are