# Sheel Mohan Bansal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1534
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-10
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 18282 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sheel-mohan-bansal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51742
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Indian Stamp Act, 1899- Sections 27,
33,47-A 62, 62-A, 64 & 64-B- the authorities
cannot proceed under Section 47-A of the Act -
for levying stamp duty on a gift deed, the
provisions of Section 47- A of the Act do not
come into play-no requirement of determination
of market value in case of gift deeds- impugned
orders set aside.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(D) and (E) :- The judgment
rendered in the case of Saurabh Gupta
versus Union of India, 2018 (127) ALR 388
does not lay down good law and is
therefore overruled.

70. The reference is answered
accordingly.

71. Office is directed to place the
record of writ petition before Hon'ble
Single Judge for further orders.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1534
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ -C No. 18282 of 2023

Sheel Mohan Bansal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Goswami, Sukumari Vallabh Goswami

Indian Stamp Act, 1899- Sections 27,
33,47-A 62, 62-A, 64 & 64-B- the authorities
cannot proceed under Section 47-A of the Act -
for levying stamp duty on a gift deed, the
provisions of Section 47- A of the Act do not
come into play-no requirement of determination
of market value in case of gift deeds- impugned
orders set aside.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sumit Gupta v. State of U.P. & Others
reported in 2011 (3) ADJ 712;

2. Vijay Kumar vs. Chief Controller, Board of
Revenue and others reported in [2017 (136) RD
364]
3. Sai Janseva And Another v. State of U.P. And
4 ors-Writ - C No.5185 of 2022 [Neutral Citation
No. - 2024:AHC:21964])

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
(Judgement dictated in Court)

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Goswami,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Sri Siddharth Singh, learned
Standing counsel for the State respondents.

2. This is a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, wherein
the petitioner assails the order dated
November 18, 2022 passed by respondent
no.2 and the order in Appeal dated March
13, 2023 passed by respondent no.3. By
virtue of these orders, the authorities have
claimed additional stamp duty with regard
to a gift deed of a plot of land in question
on the ground that the potential of the land
would increase the market value of the
land. Further ground has been enumerated
stating that within 200 meters of land in
question there are residential areas as well
as within 50 meters there is a petrol pump.

CONTENTIONS
OF
THE
PARTIES

3. Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that the instrument
in question being a deed of gift, the entire
proceedings that have been initiated by the
authorities under Section 47-A (3) of the
Indian
Stamp Act, 1899
(hereinafter
referred to as "the Act") is without any
basis in law. He has submitted that the
authorities concerned does not have the
power under Section 47-A of the Act to
reassess the stamp duty paid by the
petitioner on the grounds that duty would
be chargeable on the market value of the
property. To buttress his arguments, he
4 All. Sheel Mohan Bansal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1535
relies on the judgements in the matter of
Sumit Gupta v. State of U.P. & Others
reported in 2011 (3) ADJ 712; Vijay
Kumar vs. Chief Controller, Board of
Revenue and others reported in [2017
(136) RD 364] and Sai Janseva And
Another v. State of U.P. And 4 Others
(decided on February 7, 2024 in Writ - C
No.5185 of 2022 [Neutral Citation No. -
2024:AHC:21964]) and submits that in the
case of gift deed, the 'value of the property'
is required to be taken and not the 'market
value'. He has emphasized the fact that
under Article 33 of the Schedule 1-B of the
Act, the description of the instrument
wherein a gift is given the proper stamp
duty is required to be paid for a
consideration equal to the 'value of the
property'.

4. Per contra, counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents has relied on the
inspection report to indicate that to the east
of the property within 50 meters there is a
petrol pump as well as agricultural
activities are being carried out. He has
further indicated that within 200 meters
there are certain residential/commercial
activities being carried out. He emphasized
that the future potential of the land and the
market value of the land would be more,
and therefore, actual value should increase
by 50%.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

5. Upon a perusal of the judgement
of a coordinate Bench of this Court penned
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal, J. in
Sumit Gupta (Supra) wherein it has been
categorically examined whether in case of
gift deed there was any application of
Section 47-A, and the very concept of
market value. The relevant paragraphs are
delineated below:-
"The
more
important
aspect
involved in this writ petition is whether the
authorities under the Act are competent
under Section 47-A of the Act to determine
the market value of the property referred to
in the gift-deed in question for the purposes
of levy of stamp duty.
A Gift-deed is chargeable to stamp
duty under Article 33 of Schedule 1-B of the
Act, which is reproduced as under:

Description
of
instrument
Proper
Stamp-duty
33.
Gift - Instrument
of, not being a
Settlement (No.58),
or Will or Transfer
(No.62)
Hiring
Agreement
or Agreement of
Service
-
See
"Agreement" (No.5)
The
same
duty
as
a
Conveyance
No.23 clause
(a)
for
a
consideration
equal to the
value of the
property

Note: Emphasis supplied
It provides that a gift is chargeable
to stamp duty as a conveyance provided
under Article 23 clause (a) for a
consideration equal to the value of the
property.
It may be noted that in the above
Article words used are "value of the
property" as distinguished from the "market
value", meaning thereby that for the
purposes of determining stamp duty on a
gift-deed market value is not required to be
mentioned/determined. The disclosure of
the value of the property in the gift is
sufficient for the purposes of payment of
stamp duty.
A perusal of Section 47-A of the Act
indicates that it comes into play only where
the market value of the property in the
instrument is disclosed to be lesser than
that determined in accordance with the
Rules made under the Act. So disclosure of
1536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
market value of the property is mandatory
for the applicability of Section 47-A of the
Act and it should be less than the market
value determined under the Rules ie. the
circle rate prescribed/notified under the
Act/Rules.
Thus, there is a clear departure in
the language used in Article 33 of the
Schedule I-B of the Act and Section 47-A of
the Act. Section 47-A of the Act uses the
expression in "market value" whereas for
levying stamp duty on a gift-deed Article 33
of Schedule 1-B of the Act uses the
expression "value of the property".
The legislature in its wisdom has
differently used the words "value of the
property"' and "market value" in the Act. It
is not without purpose. "Market value"
refers to the value of the property prevailing
in the market on which the prospective
purchaser is ready and willing to purchase
and seller is ready and willing to sell the
property in the ordinary course of business.
Therefore, market value is a bilateral
transaction depended upon the will of two
persons. On the other hand, 'value' simply
connotes the estimated monetary worth of
the property in the eyes of the seller and is in
the nature of a unilateral act.
In conveyance, such as sale of
property, generally two parties, ie. seller
and purchaser are involved and the market
value of the property is determined on the
basis of the market forces ie., demand and
supply of the commodity. In a deed of gift it
is only the person making the gift who is
relevant. It is up to him how he values his
property. The value of the property in the
eyes of the person receiving the gift is not
material. This being the situation, the
legislature has deliberately used the word
"value of the property" in Article 33 while
subjecting the gift to stamp duty and has
refrained from using the term "market
value"."
6. In light of the above judgement,
it is patently clear that for levying stamp
duty on a gift deed, the provisions of
Section 47-A of the Act do not come into
play. Furthermore, there is no requirement
of determination of market value in case of
gift deeds. This judgement was accepted by
the authorities and has attained finality. The
aforesaid judgment was thereafter cited in
Vijay Kumar (Supra) and a coordinate
Bench has held that Section 47-A of the Act
would have no application whatsoever. The
said principle was thereafter, reiterated by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in Sai
Janseva And Another (Supra).

7. Upon a perusal of the
judgements provided above, it is clear that
in case of a gift deed that has been accepted
and registered, the authorities cannot take
reference to Sub-section (3) of Section 47A of the Act and suo moto seek additional
stamp duty based on the market value of
the property. However, the question arises
that in the case of under valuation that may
have been done by the executor of the
instrument what recourse is available to the
authorities.

8. In my view, the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 provides for various provisions
that may be acted upon that are provided in
Sections 27, 33, 62, 62-A, 64 and 64-B,
wherein, if adequate stamp duty has not
been affixed, the authorities can proceed
against the executor for prosecution and
collection of deficit stamp duty. However,
the authorities cannot proceed under
Section 47-A of the Act which is what has
been done in the present case. It is also
seen, that the respondents have not taken
into account the judgements cited by the
petitioner and proceeded to adjudicate upon
their whims and fancies. It was incumbent
upon the authorities to have taken note of
4 All. Mohd. Ashif Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1537
the judgements cited by the petitioner and
pass a reasoned order on the same, which
has clearly not been done in the present
case. The authorities are directed to be far
more cautious in their approach in quasi
judicial activities being carried out by them.

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

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

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

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

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ -C No. 26636 of 2012

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

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Neeraj Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

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

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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