# Smt. Saroj Verma Objection Filed v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 505
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1004498 of 2005
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-saroj-verma-objection-filed-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48344
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, Indian Stamp Act, - Sections
47A (3) & 56, - U.P. Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 - Rule 7 (3)(C) - A
Registered
sale
deed
executed
-
deficiency in stamp together with interest
& penalty determined (by the authority)
relying upon ex-parte reports without
showing any details of property in it and
also behind the back of petitioner -
revision
rejected
-
writ
Petition
-
impugned orders are set aside with
direction to refund the deposited amount
pursuance thereof to the petitioner within
four months. (Para -11, 12, 13)

Writ Petition is allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases referred: -

## Text

4 All. Smt. Saroj Verma Objection Filed Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
505
and upon hearing them that the provisions
of the Act apply, the authorities may
proceed as against them as is permissible
in law.

16. In the present case, no such
exercise was ever carried out prior to
imposing
the
recovery
against
the
petitioner.

17. The third judgment in the case of
Sindi Sehiti M.P. Transport Cooperative
Society Ltd. Bhopal (supra) as cited by
the counsel for the respondents would also
not applied to the facts of the case
inasmuch as there is no issue in between
the parties that the petitioners' organization
has not been notified under section 1(5) of
the 'ESI Act'.

18. As the demand in the present case
pertain to the period January 1981 to May
1989 and I have already held that the
definition of manufacturing process as
adopted w.e.f. 20.10.1989 would not be
applicable for the period for which the
demand has been raised, clearly the
demand is unsustainable, as such the orders
dated
24.06.2004,
30.07.2004
and
14.02.2002 contained as Annexures 5, 6
and 7 to the writ petition are set aside.

19. The writ petition stands allowed.

20. The amount deposited before this
court shall be refunded to the petitioners on
their moving an appropriate application.
----------
(2022)04ILR A505
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Writ C No. 1004498 of 2005

Smt. Saroj Verma Objection Filed
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vimal Kishore Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, Indian Stamp Act, - Sections
47A (3) & 56, - U.P. Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 - Rule 7 (3)(C) - A
Registered
sale
deed
executed
-
deficiency in stamp together with interest
& penalty determined (by the authority)
relying upon ex-parte reports without
showing any details of property in it and
also behind the back of petitioner -
revision
rejected
-
writ
Petition
-
impugned orders are set aside with
direction to refund the deposited amount
pursuance thereof to the petitioner within
four months. (Para -11, 12, 13)

Writ Petition is allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases referred: -

1. Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha Vs St. of U.P.-
(2005 Vol. 98 RD 511)

2. Ram Gopal Vs St. of U.P. & ors. - (2009 Vol.
27 LCD 1335)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 20.08.2003
passed by the Collector, Sitapur in Stamp
Case No. 15 under Section 47A (3) of the
Indian Stamp Act and also the order dated
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
09.05.2005 passed by the Additional
Commissioner(Judicial),
Lucknow
Division, Lucknow in Revision No. 114 of
2002-03 under Section 56 of the Stamp Act
imposing
recovery
on
the
basis
of
deficiency in stamp duty and penalty upon
the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that
the petitioner purchased a plot with area
1380 Square Feet which had two rooms,
one Verandah, one kitchen and bathroom
constructed on it with covered area of 435
Square Feet situated in Mohalla- Civil
Lines, District- Sitapur through registered
sale deed on 11.07.2002. Stamp duty was
paid as per the Circle Rate List issued by
the Collector at the time of the execution of
the sale deed to the tune of Rs. 43,200/-
upon total valuation of Rs. 4,31,737/-. The
petitioner specifically mentioned in the sale
deed the area which was covered by
construction and the area which was lying
open
as
plot
appurtenant
to
it.
Subsequently, on the basis of a report dated
04.12.2002 submitted by the Sub-Registrar,
Sitapur proceeding under Section 47 A of
the Stamp Act was initiated, the Collector
issued
notice
to
the
petitioner
on
07.03.2003, the petitioner having come to
know filed an application before the
Collector for an spot inspection of the
property
in
question
as
the
earlier
inspection had been carried out ex parte
and the report clearly stated that no one
was found and the house was found locked
at the time of inspection. Such application
remained pending. The petitioner was not
residing in the house, she had bought as she
was residing with her parents in Mohalla
Rani Kothi, Buts Ganj, Sitapur.

4. After the report submitted by the
Sub-Registrar dated 04.12.2002, another
report was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar,
Sitapur on 05.05.2003 which was also ex
parte as the house was found locked even
at that time and measurement of covered
area could not be carried out either by the
Sub-Registrar or by the Naib Tehsildar.
Based on such ex parte reports the
Collector
passed
the
order
dated
02.08.2003
determining
deficiency
of
stamp duty at Rs. 6,850/- and also imposing
maximum penalty which was four times of
such deficiency amounting to Rs. 27,400
plus interest @ 18% per annum. The
petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision
under Section 56 wherein a specific ground
was taken that the inspection was carried
out ex parte and behind her back, however,
the Additional Commissioner passed the
order on 03.09.2003 directing the petitioner
to deposit at least one third of the amount.
The petitioner deposited Rs.11,897/- on
10.09.2003. On 05.11.2003, the Additional
Commissioner passed an interim order
staying rest of the recovery till disposal of
the revision. The Revision was disposed of
on 09.05.2005 by observing that at least
two inspections were carried out of the
property in question, one by the SubRegistrar and other by the Naib Tehsildar. It
was however not appreciated that both the
inspections were ex parte and it was
specifically mentioned in such report that
house was found locked, therefore, no
measurement of covered area could be
done by the officer inspecting the property
in question. The report was based on
conjectures and surmises and it ought to
have been rejected, however, the Additional
Commissioner based his order rejected the
Revision only on such report.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon Rule 7 (3)(C) of
the U. P. Stamp (Valuation of Property)
Rules, 1997, wherein the Collector is
supposed to inspect the property after due
4 All. Smt. Saroj Verma Objection Filed Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
507
notice to the parties to the instrument and
then determine the market value.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon paragraph 6 of his
petition, wherein he has mentioned this fact
that no inspection was carried out in the
presence of the petitioner.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the
State Respondents on the basis of averments
made in the counter affidavit in paragraph 8
has stated that two inspections were carried
out one by the Sub-Registrar on 04.12.2002
and the other by the Naib Tehsildar on
05.05.2003, but house was found locked and
from inspection of its from the outside it
appeared to the officers that the house was
fully covered which was not mentioned in the
sale deed. The petitioner having been issued
notice in the stamp case and having filed her
application should have also submitted
documentary evidence including photographs
to show that the entire plot was not covered
by construction to substantiate her claim. This
was not done by the petitioner.

8. This Court has perused the orders
impugned. Both orders are based on spot
inspection having been carried by the SubRegistrar and the Naib Tehsildar, but such
inspections had found the house to be locked
therefore no measurement of covered area
could be done. Just by making an estimate
from looking at the house from the outside
both the Sub-Registrar and the Naib Tehsildar
had guessed that the plot may have been fully
covered by construction which was not
mentioned in the sale deed, and therefore,
deficiency in stamp as well as penalty was
imposed upon the petitioner.

9. This Court in the case of Ram
Khelawan @ Bachcha vs. State of U.P.
2005 (98) RD 511 has considered Section
47A of the Indian Stamp Act as well as the
responsibility of the Collector as mentioned
in the U. P. Stamp Rules, 1997. After
considering Rule 4, 5 and 7 of the U.P.
Stamp Rules, 1997, the Court observed that
it was the responsibility of the Collector to
issue notice to the affected party and he
may admit oral and documentary evidence
if produced by the party to the instrument,
and
after
conducting
inquiry
which
including on the spot inspection in the
presence
of
the
parties
determine
deficiency in stamp duty, if any. The Court
observed on the basis of earlier judgements
rendered by this Court that the entire basis
of determination of market value for the
purpose of stamp duty was an ex parte
report of the Tehsildar. Ex parte inspection
report may be relevant for initiating the
proceedings under Section 47A of the
Stamp Act, however, for deciding the case
no reliance can be placed on such ex parte
report. After initiation of the stamp case,
inspection is to be made by the Collector or
the Authority hearing the case after due
notice to the parties to the instrument as
provided under Rule 7 (3)(C) of the Rules,
1997. Moreover, in the said inspection
report, if possible, a sketch map should also
be included.

10. A Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Ram Gopal vs. State of U.P. and Other
2009 (27) LCD 1335 has observed, while
placing reliance upon Ram Khilawan
(Supra), in paragraph 13 as follows:-

"13. The Uttar Pradesh Stamp
Valuation
of
Property
Rules,
1997
particularly Rule 7 provides the procedure
on receipt of a reference or when suo motu
action is proposed under Section 47-A of
the Stamp Act. The Rule 7(2) (c) provides
that the Collector may inspect the property
after
due
notice
to
parties
to
the
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
instrument. The complete reading of the
aforesaid rule clearly indicates that while
deciding the proceedings under Section 47A of the Stamp Act the Collector or its
authority
are
required
to
make
an
inspection after due notice to the parties to
the instrument. The proceeding under
Section 47-A of the Stamp Act shall not be
decided merely placing reliance on the ex
parte report of the Tehsildar or any
authority for that purpose. In the present
case
the
Tehsildar's
report
dated
03.05.2001 does not disclose as to whether
any notice was given to the petitioner
before inspection of the land in question by
the Tehsildar. Rather it clearly shows that it
was an ex parte report. Hence the order
dated 26.07.2001 was passed in violation
of Rule 7(2) (c) of the U.P. Stamp Valuation
of Property Rule, 1997."

11. In view of the law settled by this
Court, it is incumbent upon the Collector
while conducting the inquiry on initiation
of a stamp case under Section 47A, to
inspect the property in question in the
presence of the parties and to consider their
representation, if any, and then pass
appropriate, reasoned and speaking order.

12. In the case at hand, this Court has
perused the orders impugned and finds that
both the Collector and the Additional
Commissioner had placed reliance upon ex
parte reports, which ex parte reports also
do not mention in detail anything about the
property, they only said that the house was
found locked and from looking at it from
the outside, it seemed that it was fully
constructed.

13. The orders impugned are set
aside. If any amount has been deposited
by the petitioner in pursuance of the
orders impugned, the same shall be
refunded to her within a period of four
months from the date a copy of this order
is produced before the opposite party
no.3.

14. Accordingly, the petition stands
allowed.
----------
(2022)04ILR A508
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 26 of 2022

Dinesh Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
Alok Kumar Rai & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Kaushlendra Tewari, Santosh Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shashank Bhasin, Anurag Kumar Singh,
Lalta Prasad Misra

A. Civil Law - Contempt of Courts Act,
1971: Section 10/12 - Determination
of the lis between the parties is
necessary
prior
to
initiation
of
proceedings for contempt under the
Contempt of Courts Act. Any attempt in
taking cognizance of contempt relying upon
the judgment passed in some other case
would amount to stifling the respondents
from distinguishing the applicability of the
judgment from the facts of the case. (Para
15)
Contempt Application Dismissed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & MD Vs M.
George Ravishekaran & ors. Civil Appeal No.
1816 of 2014