# Smt. Manorama v. Board of Revenue & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 565
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-19
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 6490 of 2002
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-manorama-v-board-of-revenue-ors-49163
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - Under-Valuation of the
instrument - deficiency of stamp duty -
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 - 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 -
In the instant case disputed plot recorded
as agricultural plot in the revenue record
on the date of execution of sale deed in
favour of petitioner i.e. on i.e. 23.03.1995
- Naib Tehsildar submitted report dated
06.11.1995 that plot in dispute is an
agricultural
plot
and
no
building
is
situated over the same - However, Stamp
duty imposed by Additional Collector on
the ground of future potential of the land -
Held - imposition of residential/ abadi rate
for determining the valuation of land on
the ground of future potential of the land
in dispute is illegal - there was no
evidence on record to hold that land in
dispute is not an agricultural land -
impugned orders cannot be sustained in
the eye of law (Para 9, 10)

Allowed. (E-5)
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

1 All. Smt. Manorama Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
565
consider the effect of the order passed by
the Consolidation Court. Courts below
have failed to consider that order passed by
the Consolidation Court cannot be ignored
at all but the Courts below have arbitrarily
rejected the petitioners' application for
cancellation of lease executed in favour of
contesting respondents.

11. It is also relevant to mention that
petitioners are claiming themselves to be in
possession since before the Consolidation
operation, as such, the land was not vacant
at all at the time of grant of patta and the
entry which was illegally made in respect
to the petitioner's plot that was corrected by
the order of Deputy Director Consolidation,
as such, there was no occasion to grant the
lease to the contesting respondent.

12. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances as well as ratio of law laid
down in Balbir Singh (Supra) as well as
Benimadho (Supra), the impugned orders
dated 28.2.2018 and 25.5.2002 passed by
Board of Revenue, 27.8.1988 passed by
Additional Commissioner and 31.12.1987
passed by Additional District Magistrate,
Finance and Revenue, Gorakhpur are liable
to be set aside and the same are hereby set
aside.

13. The writ petition stands allowed
and matter is remitted back before the
respondent No.3 ? to decide the petitioners'
application under Section 198(4) which
was registered as Case No.382 of 1985
afresh on merit in the light of the
observations made in the body of the
judgment expeditiously, preferably within a
period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 565
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 6490 of 2002

Smt. Manorama ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - Under-Valuation of the
instrument - deficiency of stamp duty -
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 - 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 -
In the instant case disputed plot recorded
as agricultural plot in the revenue record
on the date of execution of sale deed in
favour of petitioner i.e. on i.e. 23.03.1995
- Naib Tehsildar submitted report dated
06.11.1995 that plot in dispute is an
agricultural
plot
and
no
building
is
situated over the same - However, Stamp
duty imposed by Additional Collector on
the ground of future potential of the land -
Held - imposition of residential/ abadi rate
for determining the valuation of land on
the ground of future potential of the land
in dispute is illegal - there was no
evidence on record to hold that land in
dispute is not an agricultural land -
impugned orders cannot be sustained in
the eye of law (Para 9, 10)

Allowed. (E-5)
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:-

1. Chhotey Lal Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2021 (152)
RD 141

2. Smt. Pushpa Sarin Vs St. of U.P. 2015 (127)
RD 855

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. S. K. Chaturvedi,
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and
2.

2. The brief facts of the case are that
petitioner has purchased agricultural plot
No.26 area 5 biswa 6 dhoor situated at
village-fautapar, Tappa-Haveli, DistrictBasi through registered sale-deed executed
on 23.03.1995 for Rs. 47,200/- The stamp
of Rs. 15370/- has been paid on the value
of Rs. 1,06,000/-. Proceeding under Section
47-A of Indian Stamp was initiated in
respect of petitioner's aforementioned sale
deed which was registered as Stamp Case
No.899/301/1994 under Section 47A Stamp
Act State Vs. Manorama. A report was
called for in the case accordingly Naib
Tehsildar
submitted
his
report
dated
06.11.1995 before Collector in Stamp Case
No.899/301/1994 mentioning that disputed
sold plot is agricultural property and no
building is situated in the disputed plot, the
disputed
plot
is
not
of
residential/commercial
importance.
The
user of land has not been changed and there
is no declaration under Section 143 of
U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act in respect of disputed
plot No.26. Petitioner appeared in the
aforementioned case after notice and
Additional Collector heard the matter. The
additional collector without considering the
report of Naib Tehsildar dated 06.11.1995
and without making the spot inspection
himself fixed the rate of Rs. 1000/- per
square meter accordingly Stamp duty of Rs.
97,585 was fixed hence deficiency of Rs.
82,215 and penalty of Rs. 82,215 was
imposed vide his order dated 29.01.1996.
Petitioner challenged the order passed by
additional
collector
dated
29.01.1996
through
revision
before
Board
of
Revenue/Chief
Controlling
revenue
authority taking specific ground in the
ground of revision that land in dispute is
agricultural
land
and
surrounded
by
agricultural land on all sides but Board of
Revenue in arbitrary manner allowed the
revision party setting aside the order
imposing penalty only but the order of
deficiency of stamp duty was maintained,
hence this writ petition on behalf of
petitioner.

3. This Court while entertaining the
writ petition passed the following interim
order dated 13.02.2002:

"The learned Standing Counsel has
appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2. He
prays for and is allowed six weeks' time
to file a counter affidavit.

Subject to petitioner giving security
of the equal amount of deficiency of
Stamp duty of Rs.82,215/- to the
satisfaction of respondent no.2 within a
period of six weeks from today, the
recovery
proceedings
against
the
petitioner in pursuance of the impugned
order shall remain stayed."

4. In spite of the interim order dated
13.02.2002 passed by this Court no counter
affidavit has been filed by Standing
Counsel on behalf of State denying the
averment made in the writ petition.

5.

Counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted
that
the
proceeding
under
1 All. Smt. Manorama Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
567
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act has
been
arbitrarily
initiated
against
the
petitioners. He further submitted that Naib
Tehsildar has submitted his report dated
06.11.1995 that disputed plot is an
agricultural plot and building is not situated
over the disputed plot but Additional
Collector without considering the report of
Naib Tehsildar dated 06.11.1995 has
ordered for payment of stamp duty and
penalty without any evidence on record to
that effect. he further submitted that
revisional court although set aside the order
of imposition of penalty but on the ground
of probability maintained the order of
payment of stamp duty. He further
submitted that proper opportunity of
hearing was also not afforded by revisional
Court. He further submitted that no
declaration has been made under Section
143 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act in respect to
disputed plot No 26 area 5 biswa 6 dhoor.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the judgment of this
court reported in 2021 (152) RD 141
Chhotey Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others,
in which this Court has held that valuation
has to be done on the date of execution of
the sale deed and not on the grounds of its
potential use subsequently for a different
purpose. Paragraph No.8 of the judgment
has been relied upon which is as follows:

On the basis of the submissions
made, the short question that arises are
as to whether levy of stamp duty can be
justified on the basis of land not being
used for the purposes for which it was
purchased and whether stamp duty can
be levied on the ground that in the
vicinity, lands are being used for
residential purposes, the above two
referred judgments give a clear answer
to the questions raised in the present
writ petition. These aspects have been
duly considered by this Court. Even
otherwise in the Rules provided for
valuation of the property, it is clear that
the valuation has to be done on the date
of execution of the sale deed and not on
the
grounds
of
its
potential
use
subsequently for a different purpose.
There
is
nothing
on
record
to
demonstrate that on the date of the
execution of the sale deed, the land was
not agricultural property referred in the
revenue
records.
There
is
further
nothing on record to demonstrate that
the land in question was declared fit for
residential use under Section 143 of the
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. That being the
case, it is a simple case of improper
exercise of jurisdiction vested in the
A.D.M. and an improper exercise of
jurisdiction vested in the Revisional
Court.

7. On the other hand learned
Standing Counsel submitted that revisional
court has partly allowed the revision of
petitioner setting aside the order of
imposition of penalty against the petitioner
and the order of imposition of stamp duty
has been rightly affirmed by revisional
court on the ground of future potential of
the land in dispute although learned stand
Counsel failed to satisfy the quarry of the
court that if revenue record, sale deed and
the
report
of
Naib-Tehsildar
dated
06.11.1995 fully demonstrate that plot in
dispute is an agricultural land on the date of
execution of sale deed dated 23.03.1995
then under what circumstances the rate of
residential plot can be imposed for fixation
of stamp duty against the petitioner.

8. I have considered the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. There is no dispute about the fact
that disputed plot No.26 area 5 biswa 6
dhoor was recorded as agricultural plot in
the revenue record on the date of execution
of sale deed i.e. 23.03.1995 in favour of
petitioner. There is also no dispute about
the fact that Naib Tehsildar has submitted
his report dated 06.11.1995 in Case under
Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act that plot
in dispute is an agricultural plot and no
building is situated over the same.
Additional Collector ordered to deficient
stamp duty as well as penalty against the
petitioner without considering the report of
Naib Tehsildar dated 06.11.1995 and
revisional court although set aside the order
of imposition of penalty against the
petitioner but affirmed the order of
payment of stamp duty on the ground of
future potential of the land.

10. Since the plot in dispute was
recorded as agricultural plot in the revenue
record on the date of execution of sale deed
coupled with the fact that report of Naib
Tehsildar submitted on 06.11.1995 that is
after about more than 7 months from the
date of execution of sale deed the plot in
dispute was found to be agricultural land in
all respect as such the imposition of
residential/ abadi rate for determining the
valuation of land on the ground of future
potential of the land in dispute is illegal.

11. Paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the
writ petition is relevant for perusal which
are as under:

"6.
That
Naib
Tehsildar
has
reported the following things land in
question is agricultural land and is
surrounded by agricultural land user
and purpose is also agriculture. Land
situate 500 meter away from Block road
and situate at Siwan, Not use full for
Abadi purposes. Nature of the land is
'Doras-4' valuation also fixed and found
to be Rs.50,880/-

7. That it is pertinent to mention
here that apart of inspection report
dated 06.11.1995 (Annexure 2) there is
no other report nor Presiding Officer
ever visited the spot or gave its own
valuation report. Nor there is any report
by the Collector/Presiding Officer on
record.

8. That it is also very much
pertinent to state that nature of the land
and it/s user has also not been changed
till today. As is required under Section 43
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, for the use of
land
other
than
the
agricultural
purposes. it is further stated that land in
question
is
still
being
used
as
agricultural purposes."

12. State has not controverted the
allegation made in the above mentioned
paragraph by filing counter affidavit in
spite of expiry of 20 years as such the
allegations made in paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and
8 of the writ petition is deemed to be
correct.

13. The full Bench of this Court in the
case reported in 2015 (127) RD 855 Smt.
Pushpa Sarin Vs. State of U.P. has held as
under in paragraph Nos. 27, 28 and 29:-

"27. The true test for determination
by the Collector is the market value of
the property on the date of the
instrument because, under the provisions
of the Act, every instrument is required
to be stamped before or at the time of
execution. In making that determination,
the Collector has to be mindful of the
fact that the market value of the
property may vary from location to
location and is dependent upon a large
1 All. Smt. Manorama Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
569
number of circumstances having a
bearing on the comparative advantages
or disadvantages of the land as well as
the use to which the land can be put on
the date of the execution of the
instrument.

28. 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.

29. The fact that the land was put to
a particular use, say for instance a
commercial purpose at a later point in
time, may not be a relevant criterion for
deciding the value for the purpose of
stamp duty, as held by the Supreme
Court in State of U.P. and others vs.
Ambrish Tandon and another11. This is
because the nature of the user is
relatable to the date of purchase which is
relevant for the purpose of computing
the stamp duty. Where, however, the
potential of the land can be assessed on
the date of the execution of the
instrument itself, that is clearly a
circumstance which is relevant and
germane to the determination of the true
market value. At the same time, the
exercise before the Collector has to be
based on adequate material and cannot
be a matter of hypothesis or surmise.
The Collector must have material on the
record to the effect that there has been a
change of use or other contemporaneous
sale deeds in respect of the adjacent
areas that would have a bearing on the
market value of the property which is
under
consideration.
The
Collector,
therefore, would be within jurisdiction in
referring to exemplars or comparable
sale instances which have a bearing on
the true market value of the property
which is required to be assessed. If the
sale instances are comparable, they
would also reflect the potentiality of the
land
which
would
be
taken
into
consideration in a price agreed upon
between a vendor and a purchaser"

14. In the present case except the
Naib Tehsildar report dated 06.11.1995,
revenue record and the sale deed in
question there was no evidence on record to
hold that land in dispute is not an
agricultural land as such the impugned
orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law
in which on the point of future potential of
the land without any basis the stamp duty
paid by the petitioner was found deficient.

15. The case law cited by learned
counsel for the petitioner in Chotey Lal
(Supra) is also applicable in the present
controversy in which the full bench
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decision rendered in Smt. Pushpa Sarin
(Supra) has been also considered.

16. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as ratio
law
laid
down
in
Smt.
Pushpa
Sarin(supra) and Chhotey Lal (Supra)
the impugned order dated 29.01.1996
passed by the Additional Collector and
order dated 14.05.2001 passed by the
Board of Revenue Allahabad cannot be
sustained in the eye of law as such the same
are hereby set aside. The writ petition
stands allowed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 570
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 45796 of 2017

Birendra Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Suneel Kumar Rai, Sri Basant Kumar
Upadhyay, Sri Saket Mani Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Madan Mohan, Sri Prem Sagar Verma

Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - Instruments undervalued -
valuation has to be done on the date of
execution of the sale deed and not on the
grounds of its potential use subsequently
for
a
different
purpose
-
Petitioner
purchased agricultural plot vide registered
sale deed for Rs. 47,200 - stamp of Rs.
15370/- was paid on the value of Rs.
1,06,000 - Proceeding under Section 47-A
of Indian Stamp was initiated - Naib
Tehsildar submitted his report dated
06.11.1995 that plot in dispute is an
agricultural
plot
and
no
building
is
situated over the same - Additional
Collector ordered to deficient stamp duty
as well as penalty against the petitioner -
order of imposition of stamp duty affirmed
by revisional court on the ground of future
potential of the land in dispute - Held -
imposition of residential/ abadi rate for
determining the valuation of land on the
ground of future potential of the land in
dispute is illegal - Impugned order set
aside (Para 10, 14, 16)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Chhotey Lal Vs St.of U.P. & ors. 2021 (152)
RD 141

2. Smt. Pushpa Sarin Vs St of U.P. 2015 (127)
RD 855

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Rai,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Madan
Mohan,
learned
counsel
for
contesting respondent Nos.6 and learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
Khasara No.395 M measuring 1.06 hectare
(2.68 acre) situated in Mauja Basai Sher
Ghar,
Bangar, Tehsil-Chhata,
DistrictMathura belong to one Munshi son of
Ghanturi, who executed a registered sale
deed on 21.11.1991 in favour of Basanta
son of Bhajana. Another sale deed was
executed by Basanta with respect to 0.82
acre in favour of Bhagwat son of Ghanturi
and for 0.62 acre area sale deed was
executed by Basanta in favour of Balram
son of Maunsi. On 21.06.1993 Balram
executed sale-deed in favour of respondent
No.6 Basanta executed another sale deed