# Saurabha Srivastava & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 767
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-09
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 12 of 2024
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/saurabha-srivastava-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51384
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Stamp Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - U.P. Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 - Market Value
Assessment - Petitioners challenged orders
dated 20.07.2022 and 06.07.2023 imposing
additional
stamp
duty
and
penalty
for
undervaluation of land purchased via sale deed
dated 04.02.2021 - Inspection on 15.03.2021
revealed land used for residential plotting with
road and electricity poles - Held, Collector's
assessment of market value at Rs.3900 per
square meter valid, based on inspection report
conducted proximate to sale deed, showing
land's potential for non-agricultural use - Smt.
Pushpa Sareen Vs St. of U.P. (Full Bench)
followed,
allowing
consideration
of
land's
potential use at or near execution date - Circle
rate irrelevant as market value determined
under Rules, 1997 - Gyan Prakash Vs St. of U.P.
relied upon - Ex-parte order justified due to
petitioners' non-appearance - Smt. Omwati Vs
Commissioner,
Meerut
distinguished
as
subordinate
to
Full
Bench
ruling
-
No
interference warranted. (Para 16-24)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Saurabha Srivastava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
767
Khata
No.
88
situated
in
Village-
Khandsara, filed by the claimants/objectors
also proves that the land/property including
Khata No. 88, which was provided to
descendants of Bandhau, belonging to
Bhairon
was
partitioned
and
claimants/objectors were satisfied with the
partition
expect
with
regard
to
land/property in suit.

31. For the reasons aforesaid, this
Court finds that there is no requirement of
interference in the impugned order(s) dated
21.05.1973 and 18.07.1978. The petition is
accordingly dismissed. Cost made easy.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 767
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-C No. 12 of 2024

Saurabha Srivastava & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ravindra Kumar Yadava, Ram Suphal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Stamp Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - U.P. Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 - Market Value
Assessment - Petitioners challenged orders
dated 20.07.2022 and 06.07.2023 imposing
additional
stamp
duty
and
penalty
for
undervaluation of land purchased via sale deed
dated 04.02.2021 - Inspection on 15.03.2021
revealed land used for residential plotting with
road and electricity poles - Held, Collector's
assessment of market value at Rs.3900 per
square meter valid, based on inspection report
conducted proximate to sale deed, showing
land's potential for non-agricultural use - Smt.
Pushpa Sareen Vs St. of U.P. (Full Bench)
followed,
allowing
consideration
of
land's
potential use at or near execution date - Circle
rate irrelevant as market value determined
under Rules, 1997 - Gyan Prakash Vs St. of U.P.
relied upon - Ex-parte order justified due to
petitioners' non-appearance - Smt. Omwati Vs
Commissioner,
Meerut
distinguished
as
subordinate
to
Full
Bench
ruling
-
No
interference warranted. (Para 16-24)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs St. of U.P.; 2015 (3)
ADJ 136 (FB)

2. Gyan Prakash Vs St. of U.P.; Misc. Single No.
17858 of 2016, decided on 07.02.2019

3. Smt. Omwati Vs Commissioner, Meerut; 2008
(3) ADJ 182

4. Duncans Industries Ltd. Vs St. of U.P.; 1997
SCC OnLine All 423

5. Ganga Saran and Sons Vs Income Tax
Officer; (1981) 3 SCC 143

6. St. of Punjab Vs Mahavir Singh; (1996) 1 SCC
609

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Vikram Soni, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents.

2. Instant petition has been filed
praying for the following main reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of CERTIORARI to quash the
impugned order dated 20-07-2022 passed
by Learned Collector Gonda and order
dated 6-7-2023 passed by the Additional
Commissioner
(Administrative-II)
768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Devipatan Mandal Gonda, annexed as
Annexure No-1 and 2 respectably with this
writ petition.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of MANDAMUS directing the
concerning authorities to stay the execution
and implementation of the order dated 2007-2022 passed by Learned Collector
Gonda and order dated 6-7-2023 passed by
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Administrative-II)
Devipatan
Mandal
Gonda during the pendency of the writ
petition."

3. The case set forth by the petitioners
is that they had purchased the land Gata
No.1842 area 0.7280 hectares situated in
village Durgaganj, Pargana Nawabganj,
Tehsil
Tarabganj,
District
Gonda
on
04.02.2021 through registered sale deed.
Although the land was agricultural yet as
more consideration was being paid beyond
the value of land as per circle rate, which
was Rs.18.20 lakhs but as per the market
value of the land sale consideration was
paid as Rs.90 lakhs. It is contended that an
inspection was conducted by the SubRegistrar, Tarabganj, Gonda and a report
was submittted on 15.03.2021 from which
it emerged that plotting was being carried
out over the land in dispute and a road was
also constructed and the electricity poles
had also been installed on the 25 feet wide
road. On the basis of the said report, the
proceedings were initiated under the
provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Act, 1899').

4. Despite notice to the petitioners,
they failed to put in appearance with the
result the competent authority passed an
ex-parte order dated 20.07.2022, a copy of
which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
The competent authority after assessing the
market value of the land in terms of U.P.
Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1997')
was of the view that the land was to be
valued at Rs.3900 per square meter and
after arriving at fair market value, imposed
stamp duty of Rs.969600 and penalty along
with registration fee upon the petitioners.

5. The petitioners being aggrieved,
filed an appeal before the appellate
authority under the provisions of Section
56(1-A) of the Act, 1899, which appeal has
also been rejected vide impugned order
dated 06.07.2023, a copy of which is
Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

6. Still being aggrieved, instant writ
petition has been filed.

7. The grounds as raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners while seeking to
challenge the impugned orders are that (a)
already an excess amount was paid while
purchasing the land inasmuch as although
the agricultural rate was less yet more
amount was paid as sale consideration and
consequently, towards stamp duty (b) the
respondents have calculated the market
value on the basis of prospective utilization
of the land which is legally misconceived,
(c) the value of residential rate is Rs.2500
per square meter but the competent
authority has assessed the value as Rs.3900
per square meter, and (d) inspection having
been made at a later date.

8. Placing reliance on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Smt. Omwati vs.
Commissioner, Meerut and others -
2008(3) ADJ 182, the contention is that
future market value of the land could not
have been taken into consideration by the
competent authority while arriving at the
fair market value of the said land.
1 All. Saurabha Srivastava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
769

9. On the other hand Sri Vikram Soni,
learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents, has placed
reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Sareen
vs. State of U.P. and others - 2015 (3)
ADJ 136, to contend that one of the
questions which were considered by the
Full Bench of this Court was:-

"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 criterian for valuation by the
Collector".

10. He contends that the question has
been answered by the Full Bench of this
Court by holding that though 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 yet 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.

11. Placing reliance on the aforesaid
Full Bench judgment of this Court the
argument of Sri Soni is that the land was
purchased by the petitioners on 04.02.2021
and the inspection was conducted on
15.03.2021
on
the
basis
of
which
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioners. Thus once the inspection was
conducted in close proximity to the
execution of the sale deed which inspection
was done within a period of one and half
month of the execution of the sale deed and
from the inspection it emerged that the
cutting of plots had been done, 25 feet wide
road was existing and the electricity poles
had been installed consequently the same
would fall within the ambit of question
which has been answered by the Full Bench
i.e. the potential of the land as emerged in
the inspection report dated 15.03.2021 and
the inspection having been conducted
within a reasonable time of the execution of
the sale deed from which it emerged that
the land was being put for the use of
plotting of plots/carving of the plots
consequently considering Rules, 1997 the
fair market value of the land has been
arrived at.

12. So far as the valuation of the land
as per the circle rate which is indicated as
Rs.2500 per square meter vis-a-vis the rate
indicated by the competent authority at
Rs.3900 per square meter, reliance has been
placed on the judgment of this Court in the
case of Gyan Prakash vs. State of U.P.
and others passed in Misc. Single
No.17858 of 2016 decided on 07.02.2019,
to contend that this Court has held that the
'market value' of the land is to be assessed
under the Rules, 1997 and thus there is no
illegality or infirmity in the orders
impugned more particularly when the
market value has been arrived at in terms of
Rules, 1997.

13. Heard learned counsels for the
parties and perused the records.

14. From perusal of the records, it
emerges that the petitioners claim to have
purchased a piece of land as described
above through registered sale deed on
04.02.2021. Admittedly, the stamp duty
was affixed at agricultural rates but as a
higher market value was paid consequently
the stamp duty was paid at the sale
consideration. An inspection was conducted
on 15.03.2021 from which it emerged that
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plots were being carved out over the land,
25 feet wide road was existing and
electricity poles were also installed over the
land. On the basis of the said report,
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioners under the provisions of the Act,
1899. Despite service of notice, the
petitioners failed to put in appearance and
an ex-parte order dated 20.07.2022 was
passed by the competent authority whereby
the market value of the land was assessed
at Rs.3900 per square meter and the
petitioners have been required to deposit
more stamp duty, registration charges as
well as penalty. The petitioners being
aggrieved filed an appeal which has also
been rejected vide the order impugned
dated 06.07.2023. Being aggrieved, instant
petition has been filed.

15. The grounds raised in the petition
are that (a) already an excess amount was
paid while purchasing the land inasmuch as
although the agricultural rate was lesser yet
more
amount
was
paid
as
sale
consideration and consequently towards
stamp duty, (b) the respondents have
calculated the market value on the basis of
prospective utilization of the land which is
legally misconceived, and (c) the value of
residential rate is Rs.2500 per square meter
but the competent authority has assessed
the value as Rs.3900 per square meter and
(d) inspection having been made at a later
date.

16. So far as the inspection having
been conducted subsequent to the sale deed
having been executed on 04.02.2021 and
the
inspection
being
conducted
on
15.03.2021, the Court may refer to the
answer of the Full Bench on this point in
the case of Smt. Pushpa Sareen (supra)
where the Hon'ble Full Bench has held as
under:-

"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."
(emphasis by the Court)

17. From perusal of the question as
was considered by the Full Bench, it
emerges that the Hon'ble Full Bench has
categorically held that 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.

18. From perusal of the records, it
clearly emerges that the land was purchased
on 04.02.2021 and the inspection was
conducted on 15.03.2021 i.e. within a
1 All. Saurabha Srivastava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
771
period
reasonably
proximate
to
the
purchase of the land. From a perusal of the
inspection report, it clearly emerges that the
plots have been carved out, 25 feet wide
road was existing and the electricity poles
had also been installed on the said piece of
land. Thus, it cannot be said that the
Collector concerned/competent authority
has considered future value of the land
inasmuch as it is from the inspection report
from which it emerged that the land was
being put to residential use by carving out
plots and as such by considering the
provisions
of
Rules,
1997
the
Collector/competent authority has arrived
at a fair market value.

19. The arrival of a fair market value
would also not be circumscribed by the
circle rates as held by this Court in the case
of Gyan Prakash (supra) wherein this
Court after considering the provisions of
the Rules, 1997 has held as under:-

"30. The next question that arises is as
to how the authority concerned would
adjudicate the matter pertaining to the
'market value' and the stamp duty which in
fact has been paid on the sale deed. This
question may also not detain this Court
inasmuch as Section 47-A (3) of the 1899
Act clearly gives the said power to the
Collector to call for an examine the
instrument for the purpose of satisfying
himself as to the correctness of the market
value of the property and if he has reason
to believe that the market value of such
property has not been truly set forth in the
instrument he may determine the 'market
value' of the said property and the duty
payable thereon. Thus, reason to believe is
vested with the Collector and upon which
the determination of the market value is to
follow. The term "reason to believe" used in
Section 47-A (3) of the 1899 Act clearly
spells out that the authority must have some
material, with a direct, circumstantial or
even intrinsic evidence on the basis of
which he may come to a reasonable belief
that the market value of the property has
not been correctly indicated in the
instrument/sale deed. Thus, there has to be
some material before the authority in order
to arrive at the said conclusion. This aspect
of the matter is also no longer res-integra
keeping in view the judgment of this Court
in the case of Duncans Industries Limited
vs. State of U.P. 1997 SCC On line All 423,
wherein this Court after placing reliance on
the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in the case of Ganga Saran and sons vs.
Income Tax Officer (1981) 3 SCC 143 and
State of Punjab vs. Mahavir Singh (1996)
1 SCC 609 has held as under:-

"Section 47A (2) of the Act postulates
that if the Registering Authority while
registering the instrument on which duty is
chargeable on the market-value of the
property, has "reason to believe" that the
market-value of the property which is the
subject-matter of such instrument has not
been truly set forth in the instrument, he
may, after registering such instrument,
refer the same to the Collector for
determination of the market value, of such
property and proper duty payable thereon.
The term 'reason to believe' occurring in
Sub-section (2) of Section 47A spells out
that Registering Officer, must have some
material-direct, circumstantial or even
intrinsic evidence on the basis of which, he
may come to a reasonable belief that the
market value of the property has not been
truly set forth in the instrument. In other
words, the belief must be that of the honest
and
reasonable
person
based
upon
reasonable grounds. In Ganga Saran and
Sons v. Income Tax Officer (1981) 3 SCC
143: AIR 1981 SC 1363, the Supreme Court
while dwelling on the expression 'reason to
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
believe' occurring in Section 147(a) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 was pleased to hold
as under:

"The important words under Section
147(a) are 'has reason to believe' and these
words are stronger than the words 'is
satisfied'. The belief entertained by the
Income Tax Officer must not be arbitrary
or irrational. It must be reasonable or in
other words it must be based on reasons
which are relevant and material. The court,
of course, cannot investigate into the
adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons
which have weighed with the Income Tax
Officer in coming to the belief, but court
can certainly examine whether the reasons
are relevant and have a bearing on the
matters in regard to which he is required to
entertain the belief before he can issue
notice under Section 147(a). If there is no
rational or intelligible nexus between the
reasons and the belief so that on such
reasons no one properly instructed on facts
and law could reasonably entertain the
belief, the conclusion would be inescapable
that the Income Tax Officer could not have
reason to believe that any part of the
income of the Assessee, had escaped
assessment and such escapement was by
reason of the omission or failure on the
part of the Assessee to disclose fully and
properly all material facts and the notice
issued by him would be liable to be struck
down as invalid."

Formulation of the requisite belief
under Section 47A of the Stamp Act is not a
matter of purely subjective satisfaction. In
State of Punjab v. Mahavir Singh (1996) 1
SCC 609 : (1996) 1 SCC 609, the Supreme
Court while considering identical Section
47A as inserted in the Act by Punjab Stamp
(Amendment) Act, 1992 held that the
Registering Authority has to satisfy himself
that the value of the property or the
consideration of it has not been truly set
forth in the instrument and further that it
will be "only an objective satisfaction" that
the authority has to reach a reasonable
belief that the value or consideration of the
property conveyed has not been truly set
forth in the instrument relating to the
transfer of property. It is thus patent that it
would be matter of objective satisfaction of
the Registering Authority to reach a
reasonable belief that the value or
consideration of the property which is the
subject-matter of transfer, has not been
truly set forth."

20. From perusal of the judgment of
this Court in the case of Gyan Prakash
(supra), it is thus apparent that the market
value of the land would have got nothing to
do with the circle rates inasmuch as it is the
determination of the Collector which would
determine the market value of the land
along with some material which may have
a direct, circumstantial or even intrinsic
value on the basis of which he can come to
a reasonable belief that the market value of
the property has not been correctly
indicated in the instrument/sale deed.

21. As already indicated above, from
a perusal of the inspection report it
emerged that the land was not being put to
agriculture use rather plots had been carved
out, road was existing over the said piece of
land and electricity poles had also been
installed and thus the fair market value as
has been arrived at by the Collector needs
no interference by this Court and would not
be circumscribed by the circle rate.

22. So far as the ground of more value
having been paid while purchasing the land
vis-avis the agricultural circle rate, the said
ground
is
also
patently
misconceived
inasmuch as the amount paid by the
petitioners has been found to be less than the
1 All. Balwan Singh & Anr. Vs. N.H.A.I. & Anr.
773
fair market value as assessed by the Collector.
Thus, the said ground is also rejected.

23. So far as the judgment of this
Court in the case of Smt. Omwati (supra)
is concerned, obviously the same would
give way to the Full Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of Smt. Pushpa
Sareen (supra).

24. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, no case for interference is made
out. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 773
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,
A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ-C No. 11417 of 2023
with
Writ-C Nos. 18478 of 2023 & 18521 of 2023

Balwan Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
N.H.A.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra

The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(Act of 2013) to National Highways Act,
1956 (NH Act) - Section 80 -The petitioners
sought interest under Section 80 of the Act of
2013 for delayed payment of compensation for
land acquired under the NH Act - Held, Section
80, providing for interest at 9% per annum (and
15% after one year of delay) on unpaid or
undeposited compensation, applies to NH Act
acquisitions, as it is a beneficial provision,
following Union of India Vs Tarsem Singh
(2019), which struck down Section 3-J of the NH
Act as violative of Article 14 for denying
solatium and interest. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 17)

Constitutional Validity and Article 14 - The
exclusion of solatium and interest under Section
3-J of the NH Act was declared unconstitutional
in Tarsem Singh for creating discriminatory
treatment between landowners under different
statutes - Held, denying interest under Section
80 of the Act of 2013 to NH Act acquisitions
would violate Article 14, as it discriminates
against similarly situated landowners, and the
Central
Government's
notification
dated
28.08.2015 under Section 105(3) extends
beneficial provisions of the Act of 2013 to NH
Act acquisitions. (Paras 13, 14, 15)

Statutory
Framework
-
Interest
on
Compensation - Section 3-H(5) of the NH Act
provides interest at 9% per annum only on
excess
compensation
determined
by
the
Arbitrator, but is silent on interest for delays in
initial compensation payment - Held, Section 80
of the Act of 2013, mandating interest from the
date of possession until payment, is more
beneficial and applies to NH Act acquisitions to
ensure fair compensation, as per the mandate
of Section 105(3) of the Act of 2013. (Paras 5,
6, 10, 16, 17)

Central Government's Notification and
Legislative
Intent
-
The
Central
Government's notification dated 28.08.2015,
issued under Sections 105 and 113 of the Act of
2013, extended provisions for compensation,
rehabilitation, and resettlement to NH Act
acquisitions - Held, this reflects the intent to
provide
uniform
benefits
to
landowners,
ensuring that interest under Section 80 applies
to prevent dilution of compensation rights,
aligning
with
Nagpur
Improvement
Trust
principles. (Paras 12, 14, 16)
Application to Specific Cases - In Writ-C No.
11417 of 2023, petitioners claimed interest for
18 months from the award date (22.09.2020) to
payment date (03.03.2022); in Writ-C Nos.
18478 and 18521 of 2023, petitioners sought
interest from the award date (07.12.2019) to
payment date (30.01.2023) - Held, petitioners