# Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1478
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-13
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 19644 of 2016
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50122
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 226 - Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 2(14), 47 & 47-A - UP Stamp
Valuation of Property Rules, 1997- Rule
3(1)(A), 7(3)(C), - UP Zamindari Abolition
& Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections
3(14) & 143 - Sale deed - agricultural land -
proceeding u/s 47-A of Act, 1899 for deficiency
5 All. Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1479
in stamp duty - objection - impugned order for
recovery of stamp duty including penalty passed
- appeal - dismissed - burden of prove - court
finds that, stamp duty as per circle rate, no
declaration u/s 143 of Act, 1950 of the said land
and admittedly, no spot inspection has been
carried out which was mandatory, as per Rules
7(3)(c) of the Rules, 1997 - The entire burden
lay upon the St. to established beyond
reasonable doubt, and nothing to this effect has
been brought on the record, rather, not only the
findings recorded in the orders impugned are
contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1899 &
Rules, 1997 - held, chargeability of the stamp
duty has to be examined with reference to the
date of execution of instrument and further, if
inspection is carried out today that would be
wholly irrelevant and therefore, in remanding
the matter, to the authorities, would be a futile
exercise - hence, writ petition succeeds and is
allowed - impugned orders are hereby quashed
- and a writ of Mandamus is also issued to
refund the amount deposited by the petitioner
prior to filing of writ petition along with 6%
interest p.a. within a period of three months.
(Para - 17, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27)

(B) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 226 - Stamp Act, 1899 -
Sections 2(14), 47 & 47-A - UP Stamp
Valuation of Property Rules, 1997- Rule -
3(1)(A), 7(3)(C), - UP Zamindari Abolition
& Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections
3(14) & 143 - Sale deed - of an agricultural
land - deficiency in stamp duty - objection -
recovery citation - stamp duty along with
penalty was imposed - appeal - dismissed -
Quantum of Stamp duty - court finds that, it is
well settled law that unless 'mens rea' is
established on the part of the purchaser, no
penalty can be imposed, even if the provision of
penalty is a creation of statute and there is no
nay finding on record, whereunder any opinion
has been framed by the authorities that
petitioner
-
held,
penalty
presupposes
culpability and an intention to conceal or to play
fraud with the authorities - therefore,
imposition of penalty is contrary to the law as
per rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, 1997. (Para - 19,
20)

(C) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 226 - Stamp Act, 1899 - s
2(14), 47 & 47-A - UP Stamp Valuation of
Property Rules, 1997- Rule 3(1)(A),
7(3)(C) - UP Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 3(14) & 143
- Sale deed - of an agricultural land - deficiency
in stamp duty - objection - recovery citation -
stamp duty along with penalty was imposed -
appeal - dismissed - Instrument - petitioner
takes pea that since the sale deed was declared
as void or invalid, no deficient stamp duty could
be levied - court observed that, as per the
definition, it is clear that even if, no rights are
created by an Instrument, but they are
purported to be created - therefore, merely
because the sale deed has been declared as
invalid in any subsequent proceedings, the same
would be of no consequence insofar as the
present case under the Stamp Act, - hence,
argument of the petitioner to this effect is
hereby discarded.
(Para - 21, 22)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Conclusion

45. Keeping in view the law laid
down in the aforesaid authorities as well as
the
undisputed
factual
position
that
reference was made at a very belated stage
of 10-11 years after the termination and
there being no finding by the Labour Court
in the impugned award as to whether the
respondent was or was not gainfully
employed during the intervening period or
thereafter, I find that the reinstatement with
25% back-wages along with continuity in
past service was not justified.

46. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, a consolidated
and lump sum amount of compensation
could have served the purpose to console
the
respondent
whose
services
were
terminated, not only in the light of the
documents but also considering his service
book which describe the nature of his
appointment
with
all
other
aspects
associated with it.

47. In view of the above and also
considering the nature of the interim order
dated 25.05.2017 passed in the present
petition, in pursuance whereof a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/-
was
deposited
by
the
petitioners out of which a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- has admittedly been released
in favour of the respondent, the writ
petition is partly allowed.

48. The impugned award dated
30.11.2015,
published
on
28.03.2016,
passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Gorakhpur in Adjudication Case
No.75 of 1999 is hereby quashed in part
and is modified directing payment of
compensation to the respondent workman
which this Court assess to be Rs.5,00,000/-.
Since under the interim order, a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- (rupees two lac only) has
already been released in favour of the
workman and the remaining sum of Rs.
3,00,000/- was invested with a nationalized
bank in an interest bearing deposit account,
it is directed that the aforesaid sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- along with accrued interest
upto the date shall be released in favour of
the respondent-workman within a period of
two months from the date a certified copy
of this order is produced before the Labour
Court along with appropriate application.
The Labour Court shall ensure that the
bank concerned shall facilitate release of
the said amount along with the interest
accrued upto date in favour of the
respondent-workman
without
any
hindrance.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1478
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-C No. 19644 of 2016

Raj Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nipun Singh, Sri Sumit Suri

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 226 - Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 2(14), 47 & 47-A - UP Stamp
Valuation of Property Rules, 1997- Rule
3(1)(A), 7(3)(C), - UP Zamindari Abolition
& Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections
3(14) & 143 - Sale deed - agricultural land -
proceeding u/s 47-A of Act, 1899 for deficiency
5 All. Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1479
in stamp duty - objection - impugned order for
recovery of stamp duty including penalty passed
- appeal - dismissed - burden of prove - court
finds that, stamp duty as per circle rate, no
declaration u/s 143 of Act, 1950 of the said land
and admittedly, no spot inspection has been
carried out which was mandatory, as per Rules
7(3)(c) of the Rules, 1997 - The entire burden
lay upon the St. to established beyond
reasonable doubt, and nothing to this effect has
been brought on the record, rather, not only the
findings recorded in the orders impugned are
contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1899 &
Rules, 1997 - held, chargeability of the stamp
duty has to be examined with reference to the
date of execution of instrument and further, if
inspection is carried out today that would be
wholly irrelevant and therefore, in remanding
the matter, to the authorities, would be a futile
exercise - hence, writ petition succeeds and is
allowed - impugned orders are hereby quashed
- and a writ of Mandamus is also issued to
refund the amount deposited by the petitioner
prior to filing of writ petition along with 6%
interest p.a. within a period of three months.
(Para - 17, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27)

(B) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 226 - Stamp Act, 1899 -
Sections 2(14), 47 & 47-A - UP Stamp
Valuation of Property Rules, 1997- Rule -
3(1)(A), 7(3)(C), - UP Zamindari Abolition
& Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections
3(14) & 143 - Sale deed - of an agricultural
land - deficiency in stamp duty - objection -
recovery citation - stamp duty along with
penalty was imposed - appeal - dismissed -
Quantum of Stamp duty - court finds that, it is
well settled law that unless 'mens rea' is
established on the part of the purchaser, no
penalty can be imposed, even if the provision of
penalty is a creation of statute and there is no
nay finding on record, whereunder any opinion
has been framed by the authorities that
petitioner
-
held,
penalty
presupposes
culpability and an intention to conceal or to play
fraud with the authorities - therefore,
imposition of penalty is contrary to the law as
per rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, 1997. (Para - 19,
20)

(C) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 226 - Stamp Act, 1899 - s
2(14), 47 & 47-A - UP Stamp Valuation of
Property Rules, 1997- Rule 3(1)(A),
7(3)(C) - UP Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 3(14) & 143
- Sale deed - of an agricultural land - deficiency
in stamp duty - objection - recovery citation -
stamp duty along with penalty was imposed -
appeal - dismissed - Instrument - petitioner
takes pea that since the sale deed was declared
as void or invalid, no deficient stamp duty could
be levied - court observed that, as per the
definition, it is clear that even if, no rights are
created by an Instrument, but they are
purported to be created - therefore, merely
because the sale deed has been declared as
invalid in any subsequent proceedings, the same
would be of no consequence insofar as the
present case under the Stamp Act, - hence,
argument of the petitioner to this effect is
hereby discarded.
(Para - 21, 22)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Varun Gopal Vs St. of UP & ors. (2015 vol. 2
ADJ 311),

2. Vijay Kumar Vs Commissioner Vs Commissioner
Meerut Division - 2008(7) ADJ 293,

3. The Institute of the Franciscan Clarist Sisters
Vs St. of UP & ors. - AIR 2020 All. 189,

4. Anirudha Kumar and Ashwani Kumar Vs Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority, UP Allahabad &
anr.- 2000 (3) AWC 2587,

5. Smt. Sushila Verma Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2006 (2) AWC 1492),

6. Sudama Vs Chief Controlling Authority - 2013
(4) AWC 3571,

7. Ajay Agrawal & ors. Vs Commissioner
Lucknow & ors. - 2023 (2) ADJ 561 (LB),

8. Ram Khelawan @ Bachha Vs St. of UP &
anr.(2005 (2) AWC 1087),

9. Smt. Asha Kapoor Vs Additional Collector
(F&R),Ghaziabad & ors. - 2008 (72) ALR 125,
1480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. Om Prakash Umar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. -
2014 (1) AWC 120,

11. Shahid Ali Vs Commissioner Bareilly Division
Bareilly & ors. (2013 )(v) ADJ 425),

12. Har Charan Lal Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
Vs St. of UP & ors. (2013 (2) AWC 1731).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Shri Nipun Singh along with
Shri Sumit Suri, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner purchased 1.1152
hectares of agricultural land by a registered
sale deed dated 27.01.2011, which recites
that the land covered by the instrument is
purely agricultural in nature and has been
purchased for cultivation activities.

3. The proceedings under section 47A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as applicable
in the State of U.P.) were registered against
the petitioner pointing out deficiency in the
stamp duty on the ground that in respect of
the same Khasra No. 69/1 minjumla, in the
past, four other sale deeds were executed,
on which stamp duty was paid at residential
rates. Therefore, an opinion was formed
that stamp duty in respect of the petitioner's
sale deed was deficient.

4. The petitioner appeared in the
proceedings and filed objections dated
08.08.2011 stating that stamp duty as per
the prevalent circle rate applicable for the
agricultural land had been paid. It was
further stated that declaration under section
143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950 had not been made in
respect of the land covered by the
instrument; that paddy crops were standing
on the agricultural field; that no spot
inspection was conducted by the authorities
and that the Sub Registrar had submitted a
report without examining the factual
position of the spot.

5. By the first order impugned dated
06.05.2013, deficiency in payment of
stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 2,78,600/-
(Rupees two lac seventy eight thousand six
hundred only) has been imposed along with
four times penalty to the tune of Rs.
11,14,400/- (rupees eleven lac fourteen
thousand four hundred only) with further
stipulation that the petitioner shall be liable
to pay an interest at the rate of 1.5 % per
month from the date of execution of the
instrument till recovery. The petitioner
filed an appeal against the said order,
which has been dismissed by the Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority by second
order impugned dated 07.09.2015.

6. The orders impugned are based
upon stamp duty paid on one sale deed out
of four, which was treated as an exemplar
so as to determine the quantum of stamp
duty in relation to the petitioner's sale deed.
The document number of the said sale deed
is 7353 of 2010, a copy whereof has been
annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ
petition. A perusal of the said deed shows
that the area covered by it was 139.36
Square meters, for which purchaser had
paid stamp duty at residential rates and the
property was described as a residential plot.
Insofar as objections taken by the petitioner
in the proceedings are concerned, it has
been observed by the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority that in case the
petitioner was aggrieved by non-making of
spot inspection, he should have moved
successive applications, but he moved it
only once. Regarding another application
dated 06.05.2013, it was observed that in
fact, it was a date fixed for passing final
5 All. Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1481
order by the first authority and it appears
that the application was moved on the date
of decision and, therefore, it may be an
afterthought.

7. Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the land
described in the instrument was and still is
purely agricultural in nature. He further
submits that once no declaration under
section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition &
Land Reforms Act, 1950 was made in
respect of property covered by the
instrument, the nature of land will continue
to be agricultural. He further submits that
the area of the land purchased by the
petitioner is around 11000 Square meters,
whereas the exemplar sale deed No. 7353
of 2010, relied upon by the Authorities
below, is only in relation to a very small
portion of the same Gata i.e., 139.36
Square meters, which was described as a
residential plot. He also submits that
conducting the spot inspection in such
matter was necessary as per Rule 7(3)(c) of
the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property)
Rules, 1997 and, therefore, once objection
with regard to spot inspection was
specifically raised by the petitioner, it was
incumbent for the Authorities to conduct
spot inspection and then form an opinion
regarding alleged deficiency and, therefore,
placing reliance on mere one sale deed of a
very small portion of the land and treating
the same as an exemplar for deciding the
matter of payment of stamp duty, is not
according to law.

8. He further submits that the
Authorities
have
placed
burden
of
proving the case upon the petitioner,
rather, since these proceedings were
initiated by the State, the burden to
establish alleged deficiency in payment
of stamp duty was upon the State and no
contrary burden could be placed upon the
petitioner.

9. He has placed reliance upon a
decision of this Court in the case of
Varun Gopal vs State of U.P. and others
reported in 2015 (2) ADJ 311, with
special reference to paragraph 24 of the
same, which is reproduced herein-below:

"24. The sine qua non for
invoking provisions of Section 47-A(3) of
the Act is that the Collector had reason to
believe, that the value had not been
properly set forth in the instrument as per
market value of the property. Once the
instrument is registered and the stamp
duty as prescribed by the Collector was
paid, the burden to prove that the market
value was more than the minimum
prescribed by the Collector under the
rules, was upon the Collector. The report
of the Sub-Registrar or Tehsildar was not
sufficient to discharge that burden. (Vijay
Kumar
v.
Commissioner
Meerut
Division, 2008(7) ADJ 293)."

10. He has further placed reliance
upon another judgment of this Court in
the case of The Institute of the
Franciscan Clarist Sisters vs State of
U.P. and others, reported in AIR 2020
All 189, wherein the property purchased
was agricultural in nature and there was
no declaration under section 143 of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
&
Land
Reforms Act, 1950.

11. Shri Nipun Singh has further
argued that, even otherwise, sale deed No.
7353 of 2010 could not have been treated
as an exemplar, inasmuch as under the
order dated 27.09.2014 passed by the
Tehsildar, in mutation proceedings, the said
sale deed has been treated as invalid for the
1482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reason that it was executed by a minor and,
therefore, no rights were transferred or
conferred by the same.

12. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the State, in paragraph no. 10 whereof it
is stated that the provisions of section 143
of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950 are irrelevant for the
purposes of deciding the chargeability of
stamp duty. In paragraph 17 of the counter
affidavit, it is stated the spot inspection was
not required in the present case as the
property was earlier transferred by applying
non-agricultural rates. Learned Standing
Counsel, therefore, submits that the orders
impugned do not require any interference.

13. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed
reiterating the version contained in the writ
petition, and further evidence has been
brought on record to establish that nature of
land not only on the date of execution of
sale deed, but also as on today is purely
agricultural in nature and different crops
are standing on the spot.

14. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, I find that non-declaration
of land as Abadi under section 143 of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,
1950 is an admitted fact. The contention of
the State to the effect that the said nondeclaration
is
not
relevant
in
the
proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act
cannot be accepted for the reason that in
exercise of statutory powers under the
Indian Stamp Act, as applicable in the State
of U.P., Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 have been framed.
Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, provide as
follows:

"Facts to be set forth in an
instrument.-In case of an instrument
relating to immovable property chargeable
with an ad valorem duty, the following
particulars shall also be fully and truly
stated in the instrument in addition to the
market value of the property-

(1) In case of land-

(a) included in the holding of a
tenure-holder, as defined in the law
relating to land tenures-

(i) the Khasra number and area
of each plot forming part of the subjectmatter of the instrument;

(ii)
whether
irrigated
or
unirrigated and if irrigated, the source of
irrigation;

(iii) if under cultivation whether
do-fasali or otherwise;

(iv) land revenue or rent whether
exempted or not and payable by such
tenure-holder;

(v)
classification
of
soil,
supported in case of instruments exceeding
twenty thousand rupees in value, by the
certified copies, or extracts from the
relevant
revenue
records
issued
in
accordance with law;

(vi) location (whether lies in an
urban
area,
semi-urban
area,
or
countryside); and

(vii) minimum value fixed by the
Collector of the district."

15. Admittedly, on the date of
execution of the sale deed, the provisions
of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950 were applicable. The
5 All. Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1483
definition of "land" as contained under
section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950,
reads as follows:

(14) "Land"[except in Sections
109, 143 and 144 and Chapter VII] means
land held or occupied for purposes
connected with agriculture, hoticulture or
animal
husbandry
which
includes
pisciculture and poultry farming;

16. In view of the definition of land
contained in the law relating to land
tenures, i.e. U.P. Zamindari Abolition &
Land Reforms Act, 1950, the fact that the
land was not declared as Abadi under
section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition &
Land Reforms Act, 1950 as explained
under section 3(14) of the said Act, in itself
becomes a relevant factor for determining
the nature of land that was subject matter of
instrument.
This
Court
in
various
authorities has held that when the land is
purchased for agricultural purposes and
declaration under section 143 of the U.P.
Z.A. & L.R.Act, 1950 has not been made
and merely because the land is situated in
close vicinity of the non-agricultural land,
the same would not loose its character as
the agricultural land for the purposes of
levy of stamp duty. Reference can be made
to few authorities of this Court in the case
of Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar
vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
U.P. Allahabad and another, reported in
2000 (3) AWC 2587; Smt. Sushila Verma
vs State of U.P. and others reported in
2006 (2) AWC 1492 and Sudama vs Chief
Controlling Authority and others, reported
in 2013 (4) AWC 3571.

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.

18. Insofar as reliance placed upon
the exemplar is concerned, comparing the
area purchased by the petitioner, i.e. around
11000 square meters, a sale deed covering
a very small area of about 139.36 square
meters cannot be said to be a rational
approach.

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
1484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

20. Insofar as the imposing four times
penalty is concerned, it is well settled that
unless "mens rea" is established on the part
of the purchaser, no penalty can be
imposed, even if the provision of penalty is
a creation of statute. Regarding imposition
of penalty, reference can be made to a
judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.
Asha Kapoor vs Additional Collector
(Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad and
others, reported in 2008 (72) ALR 125,
where this Court has held that penalty can
be imposed if there is an attempt to evade
the stamp duty and penalty presupposes
culpability and an intention to conceal or
to play fraud with the authorities. I do
not find any finding on record, whereunder
any opinion has been formed by the
respondent-Authorities that the petitioner
defrauded the Government having mens rea
at the time of getting the sale deed
executed. Even the annexures to the writ
petition disclosing the nature of land have
not been disputed by the State in the
counter affidavit. I also find that the sale
deed in question conforms to the statutory
requirements of disclosure of necessary
particulars as per rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules
of 1997. Therefore, imposition of penalty is
also contrary to law of the land.

21. Insofar as the contention of Shri
Nipun Singh to the effect that since the
sale deed was declared as void or invalid,
no deficient stamp duty could be levied
upon the petitioner, the Court it is not
impressed by the said submission in view
of the definition of "Instrument" as
contained under section 2 (14) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which reads as
follows:

14. Instrument.- "instrument"
includes-

(a) every document, by which
any right or liability is, or purports to be,
created, transferred, limited, extended,
extinguished or recorded; ..........

22. As per the aforesaid definition,
it is clear that even if, no rights are
created by an Instrument, but they are
purported to be created, the document
shall
fall
within
the
definition
of
"instrument"
so
as
to
invoke
the
provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
This Court in the case of Om Prakash
Umar vs State of U.P. and others,
reported in 2014 (1) AWC 120, has held
that the validity of the transfer made in
favour of the transferee is not a relevant
criteria so as to grant exemption from
payment of
stamp
duty.
Therefore,
merely because the sale deed has been
declared as invalid in any subsequent
proceedings, the same would be of no
consequence insofar as the present case
under the Indian Stamp Act is concerned.
The argument advanced by the petitioner
to this effect is hereby discarded.

23.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
submits that in case, non-conduct of the
spot inspection is treated as an illegality
behind passing of the orders impugned, the
matter may be remanded to the authorities
for conducting or getting conducted spot
inspection and then pass a fresh order.

24. However I find that no fruitful
purpose would be served in remanding the
matter to the Authorities and infact remand
in this case would be a futile exercise for
5 All. Agya Pal Sareen Vs. A.D.M., G.B. Nagar & Ors.
1485
the reason that the instrument in question
was executed on 27.01.2011 and it is well
settled that chargeability of the stamp duty
has to be examined with reference to the
date
of
execution
of
instrument.
Proposition
to
this
effect
has
been
consistently laid down by this Court in
various authorities including Shahid Ali vs
Commissioner Bareilly Division Bareilly
and others, reported in 2013 (6) ADJ 425
and Har Charan Lal Ice & Cold Storage
Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and others,
reported in 2013 (2) AWC 1731. Therefore,
the insistence of learned Standing Counsel
regarding remand is liable to be rejected,
also for the reason that if inspection is
carried out today, i.e. in the year 2023 that
would be wholly irrelevant for the purposes
of determination of stamp duty on the date
of execution of sale deed i.e. 2011.
Therefore, such spot inspection would
neither be of any significance nor relevant
for the purposes of deciding the matter.

25. In view of above, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.

26. The order dated 06.05.2013
passed
by
respondent
No.
3,
Collector/District
Magistrate,
Gautam
Budh Nagar in Case No. 14/2011-12 (State
vs Rajkumar) as well as order dated
07.09.2015 passed by respondent No. 2,
Chief
Controlling
Authority/Board
of
Revenue, U.P. Circuit Road, Meerut in
Appeal No. 107/M/2013-14 (Rajkumar
Bhati vs State of U.P.) are hereby quashed
by issuing a writ of Certiorari.

27. A writ of Mandamus is also
issued to the effect that any amount
deposited by the petitioner either prior to
filing of this writ petition or in pursuance
of any interim order passed in the present
case, shall be refunded to the petitioner
along with simple interest at the rate of 6%
per anum from the date of its deposit till the
date of actual payment,within a period of
three months, on moving appropriate
application by the petitioner along with
certified copy of this order before the
authority concerned.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1485
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 26600 of 2007

Agya Pal Sareen ...Petitioner
Versus
A.D.M., G.B. Nagar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anuj Srivastava, Sri V.P. Mathur,
Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh

Civil Law - The U.P. Land Acquisition
Act, 1894- claim of compensation rejected
being
time
barred-impugned
orderPetitioner submitted his application u/s 18
of Act, 1894-noticedated 12.04.2004 served
upon the Petitioner was not accompanied
with the copy of the award-Petitioner came
to know on 13.01.2004 only after receiving
copy of notice dated 12.08.2004 -date of
collector's award mentioned in proviso (b)
to sec. 18 (2) of the Act, 1894-must be
treated the date on which Petitioner came
to
know
about
the
award-harmonious
construction-six months period from the
date of Collector's award will start from
24.08.2004 and will expire on 24.02.2005Application was well within time-impugned
order bad.