# Smt. Arvind Kumari Yadav v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 57
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-01-28
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42482 of 2009
- **Bench:** Abhinava Upadhya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-arvind-kumari-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41515
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Indian Stamp Act- Section 43- A(3)-
Charging of Stamp duty-plot in question
recorded as agricultural land-according
to
circle
rate
stamp
duty
paidsubsequent
change
of
user
and
potentiality of land can be material
under
acquisition
proceeding
for
compensation purpose-but can not be
ground for levy of extra stamp duty or
imposing penalty.

Held: Para-8

It is true that the market value of a land
is
the
only
relevant
factor
for
determination of payment of stamp duty
under the Act and for that it is the
bounded
duty
of
the
Collector
to
determine it not merely on the basis of
the circle rate or its entry in the revenue
records, but on the same basis as is
required for the purpose of payment of
compensation under the land acquisition
proceedings.
Case law discussed:-
2005(98) RD, 511.

## Text

1 All] Smt. Arvind Kumar Yadav V. State of U.P. and others
57
itself a ground to quash the criminal
proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a
criminal offence or not?

6. I have considered over the
argument and also perused the papers. In
the case at hand the material collected by
the investigating officer is sufficient to
make out prima facie offence against the
applicant and since there is sufficient
evidence against the accused applicant I
do not find any illegality or irregularity in
the filing of the Charge sheet or in the
order of the lower court by which the
applicant has been summoned.

7. The application is therefore,
dismissed.

8. However, the learned lower court
is directed that after the applicant
surrenders in the court within three weeks
from today his bail application shall be
disposed of in the light of the judgment
passed by 7 judges Bench of this court in
Amarawati and another Vs. State of
U.P., 2005 Cr. L.J. 755 as approved by
the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. in
criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009
Supreme Court dated 23.3.2009.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ABHINAVA UPADHYA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42482 of 2009

Smt. Arvind Kumari Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Anwar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Indian Stamp Act- Section 43- A(3)-
Charging of Stamp duty-plot in question
recorded as agricultural land-according
to
circle
rate
stamp
duty
paidsubsequent
change
of
user
and
potentiality of land can be material
under
acquisition
proceeding
for
compensation purpose-but can not be
ground for levy of extra stamp duty or
imposing penalty.

Held: Para-8

It is true that the market value of a land
is
the
only
relevant
factor
for
determination of payment of stamp duty
under the Act and for that it is the
bounded
duty
of
the
Collector
to
determine it not merely on the basis of
the circle rate or its entry in the revenue
records, but on the same basis as is
required for the purpose of payment of
compensation under the land acquisition
proceedings.
Case law discussed:-
2005(98) RD, 511.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K. Anwar, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel.

2. Present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the
orders passed under section 47-A (3) and
56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act as
applicable to the State of U.P.

3. The petitioner had purchased a
piece of land being Arazi Khasra No.220
Khata No.126 measuring 0.40 Acre. Sale
deed was executed and registered in
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
favour of the petitioner on 19.12.2005
before Sub-Registrar, Etawah, which is
filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
According to the petitioner, the land in
question was agricultural land and the
same was purchased for Rs.4 lacs, but for
the payment of stamp duty the market
value of the land as disclosed by the
petitioner himself was Rs.4,40,000/- on
which stamp duty to the tune of
Rs.44,000/- was paid and the said
instrument
was
duly
registered.
Thereafter, that upon the report of the
Sub-Registrar proceedings under section
47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act were
drawn and the petitioner was served with
a notice to which he replied. The
Collector not being satisfied with the
reply proceeded to hear the matter and
passed order determining the deficiency
in stamp duty in the execution of the sale
deed vide its order dated 20.11.2008.
Against the said order, the petitioner
preferred
an
appeal
before
the
Commissioner under section 56 (1-A) of
the
Indian
Stamp
Act
and
the
Commissioner affirmed the order of the
Collector and dismissed the appeal, hence
this writ petition.

4. The main contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the Collector has proceeded to determine
deficiency in stamp duty on the ground
that after the execution of the sale deed on
19.12.2005 the petitioner himself applied
for declaration of land as non agricultural
under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 and
the Sub Divisional Officer declared the
said land as non agricultural vide its order
dated 13.3.2006. It is alleged that
declaration under Section 143 was the
sole reason for the Collector to give the
finding that the potentiality of the land
was always residential even at the time of
execution of the sale deed and therefore,
the petitioner has evaded the payment of
stamp duty by showing it as agricultural
land.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that potentiality or the
market value of the land has to be seen on
the date of execution of the sale deed and
not future prospect of the land as has been
done in the present case. According to
him, on the date of execution of the sale
deed the said property was agricultural
land and the circle rate prevalent was
taken into consideration and the stamp
duty was accordingly paid.

6. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel submitted that the
nature of the land as recorded in the
revenue record will not be the only
determinative factor for considering the
market value of the property. The market
value of the property has to be seen in
relation to the area where it is situated and
how much a willing purchaser would pay
and a willing seller would willingly
accept at a given point of time.

7. I have considered the submission
raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel and have perused the orders
impugned in the writ petition.

8. It is true that the market value of a
land is the only relevant factor for
determination of payment of stamp duty
under the Act and for that it is the
bounded duty of the Collector to
determine it not merely on the basis of the
circle rate or its entry in the revenue
records, but on the same basis as is
required for the purpose of payment of
1 All] Smt. Arvind Kumar Yadav V. State of U.P. and others
59
compensation under the land acquisition
proceedings. This Court in the case of
Ram Khelawan alias Bachha Versus
State of U.P. reported in 2005 (98) RD,
511, has held in no uncertain terms that
for determination of the market value the
only procedure required to be adopted by
the Collector is that of determination of
compensation under the land acquisition
proceeding. In order to highlight the
aforesaid proposition of law laid down in
the aforesaid judgment, relevant portion
of paragraph 16 of the same is quoted
herein below:-

"16........... It is interesting to note
that Rule 7 no where prescribed the
basis,
formula
or
principle
for
determining
market
value.
It
only
prescribes
procedure
like
notice,
admission of oral or documentary
evidence, calling for information or
record from any public office and
inspection of property. The result is that,
whether Rule 7 of Rules of 1997 applies
or not market value has to be determined
on the same principle on which market
value in land acquisition cases is
determined. Minimum market value
fixed in accordance with Rules of 1997 is
relevant only and only for the purposes
of referring the document by Registering
Officer
to
the
Collector
before
registration. Even after such reference
market value is to be determined not in
accordance with the minimum value
fixed under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1997
but
in
accordance
with
general
principles of determination of market
value as applicable in land acquisition
cases. Simultaneously when proceedings
are initiated after registration of the
document under section 47-A(3) of the
Act market value has to be determined in
accordance
with
general
principles
applicable for the said purpose like
principles of determination of market
value in land acquisition cases without
taking recourse to minimum market
value of the property fixed in accordance
with Rule 4 of the Rules 1997."

9. I entirely agree with the aforesaid
interpretation and I find that no such
consideration as enumerated above is
reflected from the order passed by the
Collector under Section 47-A(3) of the
Indian Stamp Act.

10. Under these circumstances, the
impugned orders are against the law laid
down by this Court in the case of Ram
Khelawan (supra) and, therefore, cannot
be sustained and is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the order of Commissioner
passed under section 56 (1-A) of the
Indian Stamp Act is also set aside.

11. It is further directed that the
Collector will proceed to determine the
market
value
of
the
property
in
accordance with procedure given in the
judgment in the case of Ram Khelawan
(supra) and pass appropriate orders
thereafter.

12. It goes without saying that the
market value has to be determined as on
the date of execution of the sale deed. It is
also made clear that any inspection that
may be made, the petitioner shall be
associated in the same.

13. Any amount already deposited
by the petitioner pursuant to the order
passed under section 47-A (3) of the
Indian Stamp Act shall be subject to any
further order that may be passed by the
Collector in the fresh proceedings to be
initiated by him as directed above.
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
14. Subject to aforesaid direction,
the writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45129 of 2009

Gopal Singh and another
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Vaish

Counsel for the Respondent:
C. S. C.

U.P. Urban land (Ceiling & Regulation)
Act
1976-Section
10(5)
10(6)-Land
declared
Surplus-Physical
possession
remained
with
actual
owner
no
proceeding for taking possession ever
initiated-even compensation not paid
entitled to remain in possession subject
to return of compensation if any paid to
petitioner-direction to delete the name
of state and record the name of owner
given.

Held: Para-5 & 6-

The Repeal Act of 1999 envisages that all
action, subject to the provision made in
that Act itself, shall abate. It is provided
under
Section
3
that
even
if
a
notification under Section 10(3) has
been issued vesting the vacant land in
the
State
Government
and
also
compensation has been paid, but if the
possession has not been taken, the land
would be restored to the land holder,
however,
subject
to
return
of
the
compensation if received. In the present
case,
it
is
not
the
case
of
the
respondents that compensation has been
paid and they have miserably failed that
the
possession
was
ever
taken
in
accordance to the provision of the
repealed Act.

For the reasons above, this petition
stands allowed and the Authorities are
directed to delete the name of the State
from the revenue record and record the
name of the owner of the disputed land
in accordance to law, if possible, within a
period of two months from the date of
submission of a certified copy of this
order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing
counsel.

2. The petitioners have sought a
mandate to the Revenue Authorities to
delete the name of the State in the revenue
record with regard to the disputed land
and record the name of the petitioners as
the rightful owners in view of the fact that
the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 has since been repealed w.e.f.
18.3.1999 in view of Act No. 15 of 1999.

3. The petitioners claim to be the
owner in possession of Gata No. 107-A
and 107-B i.e. measuring about 2 bigha
and 17 biswa situated in village Dahtura,
Tehsil Sadar, Agra which fell within the
Nagar Nigam. Proceedings under U.P.
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 were initiated and 359.637 square
meter land was declared surplus and
though notification under Section 10(3)
was issued in 1993, no proceedings under
Section 10(5) or 10(6) were completed
and
the
actual
physical
possession
remained with the petitioners. It is also
stated that in view of repealed Act, as the
physical possession had not been taken