# Smt. Shubratam v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Commissioner & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 1063
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-08
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 1000983 of 1995
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shubratam-v-chief-controlling-revenue-authority-commissioner-ors-54715
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
The petitioner challenged orders that raised a
deficiency in stamp duty against her for the
purchase of an agricultural plot of land.

Headnotes
Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Stamp
Act,
1899
Sections 47-A & Rule 341, Stamp RulesThe collector has no power to impose
penalty while exercising power under
section 47-A(4) to determine market value
and duty-Rule 341 is not conclusive but
serves
only
as
a
guideline
for
the
collector-The Collector's power is not
confined to the minimum value given in
the Rule; it can hold it to be more or less if
satisfied on the materials-The four year
limitation
period
in
section
47(A)(4)
applies to the action initiated by the
Collector (suo motu or on a reference) and
not merely to the making a reference by a
Court or other authority-Determination of
undervaluation
must
be
made
with
reference to the particular transaction
presented for registration, and the market
value must be determined with reference
to the date of execution of the documentThe Additional Collector erred by ignoring
the Tehsildar's report and fixing an
arbitrary valuation without evidence or
calling for a fresh report, which vitiated
the order.

Held
The court allowed the writ petition challenging
a levy of deficient stamp duty on her purchase
of agricultural land- The court found that the
revenue authorities committed an error of law
by ignoring Tehsildar/Lekhpal's report, which
confirmed the land's agricultural nature, instead
fixed an arbitrary valuation-The court reaffirmed
that under section 47-A of the Stamp Act, the
Collector has no power to impose a penalty-The
impugned orders were quashed and the case
was remanded to the Collector for a fresh
1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
determination of the market value and duty
payable, to be conducted in accordance with
law and established judicial precedents-Writ
petition is allowed.(Para 11 to 24) (E-6)

List of Acts
Indian Stamp Act,1899 & Stamp Rules

List of Keywords
Stamp Duty, Deficiency, Undervaluation, Market
Value, Penalty, Limitation, Agricultural Land,
Collector,
Tehsildar,
Lekhpal,Indian
Stamp
Act,1899 & Stamp Rules.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION- WRIT-C No.- 1000983 of
1995
 Smt. Shubratan Vs. Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority/Commissioner Lko &
Ors
 From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
08.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):-
Govind Saran Nigam, Abhisht Saran, Rahul
Kumar Kashyap
Adv. for Respondent(s):-
 C.S.C.

Case law cited:

## Text

10 All. Smt. Shubratam Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Commissioner & Ors. 1063
trial Court. Therefore, the order
passed by the revisional Court is contrary
to the law laid down by this Court as well
as Honble Supreme Court.

32. The publication in the daily
newspaper 'Nav Jeevan' is only a city
edition and has no wide circulation in
Gorui Bazar, therefore the judgment relied
upon
by
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents in regard to service of
summons is not applicable to the present
facts and circumstances of the case.

33. Considering in totalities of
facts and circumstances of the case, the
order dated 9.11.1997 passed by the
opposite party no.1 is set aside.

34. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.

35. Needless to say that the
opposite parties except the opposite party
no.2 shall not interfere with the peaceful
possession of the petitioner.

36. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1063
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ - C No. 1000983 of 1995

Smt. Shubratam ...Petitioner
Versus
Chief
Controlling
Revenue
Authority/
Commissioner & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Govind Saran Nigam, Abhisht Saran, Rahul
Kumar Kashyap

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
The petitioner challenged orders that raised a
deficiency in stamp duty against her for the
purchase of an agricultural plot of land.

Headnotes
Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Stamp
Act,
1899
Sections 47-A & Rule 341, Stamp RulesThe collector has no power to impose
penalty while exercising power under
section 47-A(4) to determine market value
and duty-Rule 341 is not conclusive but
serves
only
as
a
guideline
for
the
collector-The Collector's power is not
confined to the minimum value given in
the Rule; it can hold it to be more or less if
satisfied on the materials-The four year
limitation
period
in
section
47(A)(4)
applies to the action initiated by the
Collector (suo motu or on a reference) and
not merely to the making a reference by a
Court or other authority-Determination of
undervaluation
must
be
made
with
reference to the particular transaction
presented for registration, and the market
value must be determined with reference
to the date of execution of the documentThe Additional Collector erred by ignoring
the Tehsildar's report and fixing an
arbitrary valuation without evidence or
calling for a fresh report, which vitiated
the order.

Held
The court allowed the writ petition challenging
a levy of deficient stamp duty on her purchase
of agricultural land- The court found that the
revenue authorities committed an error of law
by ignoring Tehsildar/Lekhpal's report, which
confirmed the land's agricultural nature, instead
fixed an arbitrary valuation-The court reaffirmed
that under section 47-A of the Stamp Act, the
Collector has no power to impose a penalty-The
impugned orders were quashed and the case
was remanded to the Collector for a fresh
1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
determination of the market value and duty
payable, to be conducted in accordance with
law and established judicial precedents-Writ
petition is allowed.(Para 11 to 24) (E-6)

List of Acts
Indian Stamp Act,1899 & Stamp Rules

List of Keywords
Stamp Duty, Deficiency, Undervaluation, Market
Value, Penalty, Limitation, Agricultural Land,
Collector,
Tehsildar,
Lekhpal,Indian
Stamp
Act,1899 & Stamp Rules.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION- WRIT-C No.- 1000983 of
1995
 Smt. Shubratan Vs. Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority/Commissioner Lko &
Ors
 From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
08.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):-
Govind Saran Nigam, Abhisht Saran, Rahul
Kumar Kashyap
Adv. for Respondent(s):-
 C.S.C.

Case law cited:

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Shri Abhisht Saran, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Satrughun Chaduhary, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents-State.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner is challenging the
order dated 7.3.1995 passed by Chief
Controlling
Revenue
Authority/
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow and the order dated 18.9.1994
passed
by
the
Additional
Collector
(Finance and Revenue), Unnao whereby
the deficiency in stamp duty has been
raised against the petitioner.

3. Facts of the case are that the
petitioner has purchased an agricultural plot
of land Khasra No.117/M area 0-4-0
situated at Village Kure Mau, Pargana
Asiwan, Rasoolabad, Tehsil Hasanganj,
District Unnao and adjacent to the land
purchased bearing Khasra Plot Nos.40,116
and 26 are belonging to the petitioner.
Notice was issued to the petitioner in
regard to deficiency in stamp duty on
18.3.1994 levelling deficiency in stamp
duty of Rs.8745/-. A report was called for
from the Tehsildar bu the Tehsildar did not
submit any inspection report in regard to
Plot No.117/M and relying on the report of
the Lekhpal, the report was rejected and
proceeded to pass the impugned order.

4. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the land of the
petitioner is of agricultural purpose and
adjacent to the land bearing Khasra
No.117, there are other land connected to
the petitioner, therefore the Lekhpal
correctly submitted report in regard to the
stamp duty to be levelled against the
petitioner. Due to the non-consideration of
the report of the Lekhpal, Additional
Collector would have called for fresh report
from the Tehsildar, Lekhpal and Revenue
Inspector but the same was not done which
vitiates the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submits that act and action in levelling
deficiency in stamp duty is wholly illegal
and void ab initio.

6. Last submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the revenue
authority would have called for the
inspection report and then proceeded to
10 All. Smt. Shubratam Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Commissioner & Ors. 1065
level the deficiency in stamp duty and in
absence of any report, the order impugned
orders vitiate in law and are liable to be set
aside.

7. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioners has
placed
reliance
upon
the
following
judgments.

"(i) Kaka Singh v. The Additional
Collector and District Magistrate (Finance
and Revenue ), Buland Shahr reported in
1986 ALL.L. Pg. 49

(ii) Rakesh Chandra Mittal and
others v. Additional District Magistrate &
Anr. Reported in AIR 2004 Alld. 302.

(iii) Girijesh Kumar Srivastava v.
State of U.P. reported in 1998 ALL. L.J.
1604: AIR 1998 ALLAHABAD 237."

(iv) Smt. Prakashwati v. Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of
Revenue, U.P. reported in 1996 Latest
Case Law 527 SC.

8. On the other hand, Shri Satrughan
Chaudhary,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel submits that Khatauni is
the relevant document which determines
the levying of stamp duty and in its
deficiency thereon. He further submits that
once there are amendment in the Section
340 of the Stamps Rules that in case land in
question is to be short by 5 bishwas, then
the stamp duty was caused on commercial
rate and in case it comes in the town area
the rate shall be fixed in accordance with
law.

9. In support of his submission,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
has placed reliance upon a judgment
rendered in the case of P.P. Buildcon Pvt.
Ltd., Agra through its Director v. Chief
Conrolling Revenue Authority, U.P. At
Allahabad and others reported in 2014
(124) RD 316.

10. Having heard the rival submissions
of learned counsel for the parties, I have
perused the material available on record.

11.
To
resolve
the
controversy
involved in the present writ petition,
operative portion of the judgments relied
upon by learned counsel for the petitioners
is extracted here-in-below:

(i) Kaka Singh (supra):-

14. S. 47-A fills in the lacuna
which was found by the Supreme Court
inHimalaya House Co. Ltd.v.Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority((1972) 1
SCC 726 : AIR 1972 SC 899) (supra), it
empowers the Collector to deal with those
cases where the parties by arrangement
deliberately undervalue the property with a
view to defraud the Government of the
legitimate revenue by way of stamp duty. It
is not correct that the Collector is not
empowered to determine on a case being
referred to him by the Sub-Registrar under
S. 47-A(1), that the market value is in fact
less than the minimum value to be
determined by R. 341 and to find on that
basis whether the transaction sets forth the
market value truly or not. Similarly, the
hands and power of the Collector are not
confined to the minimum, value given in R.
341. It can hold it to be more if it is
satisfied on the materials brought before
him to that effect. R. 341 had been framed
by the legislature only for the limited
purpose of providing a guideline. It is not
conclusive. That being so, under sub-sec.
(1) of S. 47-A, if the Registering Officer is
1066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
satisfied that the market value is less than
even the minimum value, he may refer the
document
to
the
Collector
for
determination of the value of such property.
This is the only function of R. 341. It is
neither binding on the person who produces
the instrument for registration nor on the
State Government.

15. Under S. 47-A, the Collector
has the power to determine, whether a
particular document which is presented for
registration is undervalued with a view to
evade payment of stamp duty. For this
purpose, he would be entitled to take into
account the minimum prescribed by R. 341
as a circumstance. But the minimum laid
down in the Rule is not conclusive or
determinative of the controversy. However,
as stated above, this can be a circumstance
which can be considered along with others.

16. It is true that since there can
be no direct evidence of clandestine
dealings, a finding about evasion can be
given by considering the circumstances. It
may further be stated that determination of
undervaluation has to be made with
reference to the particular transaction
presented for registration. If otherwise a
document sets forth the amount or
consideration truly, the Collector will have
no power to hold it to have been
undervalued on the prevalent market value.
As there may be cases, the sale may take
place for a lesser amount than what is the
value of a similarly situated property.
Selling a property at a price lower than the
market value, is against human behaviour
and can be considered as a ground for
evasion. But this fact should not be made
conclusive and should be judged along with
others. No individual factor in such a
matter
is
conclusive.
The
job
of
determination is difficult but not impossible
of performance. Truth can be found despite
these odds. It is not possible for us to lay
down exhaustively as to in which cases
evasion could be found and in which it
could not be.

17. We find force also in the
argument of the petitioner's learned counsel
that since S. 47A does not empower the
Collector to impose penalty in the event of
his finding that the market value was not
truly set forth in the instrument, such an
order imposing the same would be beyond
S. 47-A. For imposing penalty in a case
like the present, power was specifically to
be conferred. In the absence of a specific
provision made in that respect, it is not
possible to uphold the contention of the
Standing Counsel that penalty could be
imposed whenever and wherever the
Collector under S. 47-A finds that the value
set forth was not true. S. 47-A as stated
above, was brought in recently to cover a
case of evasion. While enacting S. 47-A,
the legislature although empowered the
Collector to determine the market value of
the property, which is the subject of
conveyance and the duty payable thereon, it
did not make any provision empowering
the Collector to impose penalty.

18. For what we have said above,
we find that R. 341 is not ultra vires being
only meant for a limited purpose of
providing guideline. It carries out the
purpose of S. 47-A of the Act. Market
value by its nature is such which keeps on
varying and changing. For the purpose of
determining duty it is the date on which a
document is executed that is to be taken
into account. The market value has to be
determined with reference to that date. In
the instant case, we find that treating the
method of calculation given in R. 341 as
conclusive and final, the Collector found
10 All. Smt. Shubratam Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Commissioner & Ors. 1067
the market value narrated in the sale deeds
not to be truthful. This makes the order and
judgment of the Collector to be erroneous.
It suffers from vice of mistake apparent on
the face of the record. The Additional
Collector also has committed the error of
imposing penalty in the instant case. In
these circumstances the order of the
Collector is set aside and the case is sent
back to him for a fresh determination of the
controversy.

(ii) Rakesh Chandra Mittal and
others (supra):-

13.
Coming
to
the
second
question regarding imposition of penalty, a
Full Bench of this Court in the case
ofGirjesh Kumar Srivastavav.State of
U.P., reported in 1998 (1) UPLBEC 437 :
(1998 All LJ 1604) has held that the
Collector has no power to impose penalty.

(iii) Girijesh Kumar Srivastava
(supra):-

There is no dispute from either
side that the starting point of limitation is
the date of registration of the instrument
and the period of limitation is four years.
According to learned Chief Standing
Counsel if a reference from any Court or
Commissioner
of
Stamps
or
Addl.
Commissioner of Stamps or a Dy.
Commissioner of Stamps or any officer
authorised by the Board of Revenue in that
behalf is made within four years from the
date of registration of the instrument,
whether any action is taken by the
Collector or not, the proceedings would be
within limitation. Shri Rajiv Joshi, learned
counsel for the applicants has, on the other
hand, contended that the limitation of four
years is for the Collector to initiate action
and the date on which a reference is made
by a Court or authorities enumerated in the
opening part of sub-section (4) of S. 47-A
is irrelevant. The question which arises for
consideration is whether the period of four
years qualifies the action of the Collector or
the making of reference. Under sub-section
(1) of S. 47-A the registering officer is
required to make a reference to Collector
before registering the instrument, while
under sub-section (2) a discretion has been
given to him to register the instrument and
then make a reference to the Collector for
determination of market value. In normal
course of events this reference would be
made immediately after registering the
instrument and, therefore, the enquiry
under sub-section (3) is likely to commence
soon as the person in whose favour the
instrument has been executed would
forthwith come to know about the reference
and would be interested to get the matter
concluded. In the first case the instrumenl
would remain unregistered and in the
second case he will not get back the
instrument after registration on account of
it having been referred to the Collector.
Therefore, in cases covered by sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2) at least the factum
of reference would be immediately known
to the person in whose favour instrument
has been executed and he is bound to take
all proceedings expeditiously in order to
secure his title or get the benefits of the
instrument. Under sub-section (4) power
has been conferred on the Collector to call
for and examine the instrument after it has
been
registered
for
the
purpose
of
satisfying himself as to the correctness of
the market value of the property which is
subject of such instrument and the duty
payable thereon. This action can be taken
either suo motu or on a reference from any
Court or any one of the authorities
enumerated in the sub-section. In our
opinion, the language of the sub-section
1068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shows that the period of four years qualifies
the action which may be taken by the
Collector. If the interpretation suggested by
learned Chief Standing Counsel was
correct, the sub-section would have read
like this;

The Collector may, suo motu or
on a reference from any Court or from the
Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy
Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant
Commissioner of Stamps or any officer
authorised by the Board of Revenue in that
behalf made within four years from the date
of registration of any instrument.

From the language in which the
sub-section has been couched it is not
possible to hold that the period of four
years qualifies the reference.

11. It may be noticed that the
language used in the opening part of subsection (4) of S. 33 is exactly similar to the
language used in the opening part of subsection (4) of S. 47-A. The proviso to subsection (5) of S. 33 says that no action
under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5)
shall be taken after a period of four years
from the date of execution of the
instrument. Here the bar of limitation
applies to the action which may be taken by
the Collector and not to a reference. There
is no reason why similar interpretation
should not be given to sub-section (4) of S.
47-A specially when both the sections
namely S. 33 and S. 47-A find place in
same Chapter IV of the Stamp Act which
deals with Instrument Not Duly Stamped.

12. It has been held by a Full
Bench of Seven Judges of our Court
inMata Badal Pandeyv.Board of
Revenue, 1974 UPTC 570 that where there
is some doubt or ambiguity in any
provision in the authoritative English text,
it is permissible to look into the Hindi text
to remove the doubt or ambiguity. Subsection (4) of S. 47-A as given in the Hindi
version of the Act reads as follows:

The Hindi version is quite clear
and there can be no two opinions on the
matter that the period of limitation applies
to the action which may be initiated by the
Collector and no to a reference which may
be made to him by a Court or other
authority.

13. There is another reason for
not accepting the submission made by
learned Chief Standing Counsel. If the
period of limitation is held to be applicable
only to the making of a reference, a very
anomalous situation may arise. There will
be no limitation where the Collector
chooses to take suo motu action and he
may do so at any time at his sweet will.
Even where a reference is made within
limitation i.e. within four years either by a
Court or any of the authorities enumerated
in the sub-section, the Collector may not
proceed forthwith and the matter may be
kept pending for years. He may commence
proceedings after a long period, may be
after decades. The property may change
hands several times during this period
which may create complications for the
present owner who may not even be aware
of
the
circumstances
attending
the
execution of the instrument which is
alleged to be undervalued and may not be
in a position to lead evidence. The value of
immovable property changes fast. There
has been a meteoric rise in the value of
immovable property in the recent past. If
the proceedings are taken after a long
period it may be become very difficult to
give evidence regarding the market value
of the property at the time the instrument
10 All. Smt. Shubratam Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Commissioner & Ors. 1069
was executed. Therefore, the Legislature in
its wisdom thought it proper to fix a period
of limitation within which the Collector
must initiate action so that the enquiry may
not be unnecessarily delayed. In this
connection, it may be pointed out that after
the decision ofHimalaya House Co.
Ltd.v.Chief
Controlling
Revenue
Authority((1972) 1 SCC 726 : AIR 1972
SC 899) (supra) many States inserted S. 47A by amendment in the Stamp Act and the
Collector was conferred power to suo motu
call for and examine the instrument for the
purpose of satisfying himself as to the
correctness of the market value of the
property. In Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa.
Tamil Nadu, Goa, Daman and Diu and
West Bengal the piriod of limitation for the
Collector to suo motu call for and examine
the instrument is two years while Haryana,
Punjab, Himachal Pradesh it is three years.
This shows that the intention of the
Legislature is that the entire exercise
should be concluded within a reasonable
period and may not be kept pending for
long.

15. Our answers to the questions
referred are as follows:

1. While exercising power under
sub-section (4) of S. 47-A the Collector can
determine the market value of the property
and the duty payable on the instrument as a
result of such determination but he has no
power to impose penalty.

2. The period of limitation of four
years in sub-section (4) to S. 47-A applies
to the action which may be initiated by the
Collector and not to a reference from any
Court or other authorities enum ated in the
sub-section.

(iv) Smt. Prakashvati (supra):-

"We have carefully examined the
orders of the first respondent. Noticeable
the house is built on a very small area i.e.
68.84 sq yards only in a town which is not
metropolis. Presumably the smallness of
the area would not suggest the same by
itself to be a costly property or be situated
in a prestigious or posh locality, where the
upper classes would rub shoulders to
acquire it. Secondly, its being situated in a
area which is close to Samrat Vikram
Colony, said to be decent locality, where
people of high income group reside does
not by itself make it a part thereof. We are
doubtful whether the said factum of
closeness
by
itself
would
cast
any
reflection on the price of property in
question. Seemingly, influenced by the
factor of the close proximity of Samrat
Vikram
colony
the
Assistant
Commissioner, Stamps, for one does not
know how, determined the monthly rental
value of the property at Rs.1500/- per
mensem and worked out the prince of the
house on that basis.

Despite that the Tehsildar at a
subsequent stage reported that the annual
rental value of the house was Rs.1200/- per
annum, whereas for house tax purpose it
was recorded as Rs.480/- per annum. The
first respondent ignoring the same worked
out the monthly rental of the property at
Rs.830/- per mensem and its value at
Rs.2.5 lack, ostensibly on the basis that the
average cost of construction of building in
the year 1992 was about Rs.400/- per sq
yards, inclusive of the land cost. This
figures too was arrived at, one knows not
from where, without determining the age of
the building, the quality of construction and
citing appropriate instances. The approach
of the authorities, to say the least, was
highly vain, casual and unsatisfactory and
dehors any constructive material on the
1070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
basis of which on could have said that the
decision arrived at by the first respondent
was fair and reasonable. We cannot
approve of such an assumptive posture of
the respondent in treating the appellant as
an evader. We must therefore, upset the
impugned order of the first respondent and
the proceedings for the supposed deficient
payment of stamp, but confining the ends
result to the facts and circumstances of the
instant case,when the valuation under
Section 341 of the Stamps Rules.

12. Perusal of the judgments relied
upon by learned counsel for the petitioners
shows that Section 47-A empowers the
Collector to deal with those cases where the
parties
by
arrangement
deliberately
undervalue the property with a view to
defraud the Government of the Legitimate
revenue by way of stamp duty. Under SubSection (1) of Section 47-A, if the
Registering Officer is satisfied that the
market value is less than even the minimum
value, he may refer the document to the
Collector for determination of the value, he
may refer the document to the Collector for
determination of the value of such property.
This is the only function of Rule 341.

It also shows that determination
undervaluation has to be made with
reference to the particular transaction
presented for registration. If otherwise a
document
sets
forth
the
mount
or
consideration truly, the Collector will have
no power to hold it to have been
undervalued on the prevalent market value.
As there may be cases, the sale may take
place for a lesser amount than what is the
valuation of a similarly situated property.
Selling a property at a price lower than the
market value, is against human behaviour
and can be considered as a ground for
evasion. But this fact should not be made
conclusive and should be judged along with
others. No individual factor in such a
matter
is
conclusive.
The
job
of
determination is difficult but is not possible
for us to lay down exhaustively as to in
which cases evasion could be found and in
which it could not be.

13. It is also evident from perusal of
the above referred judgments that Rule 341
is not ultra vires being only meant for a
limited purpose of providing guideline. It
carries out the purpose of S. 47-A of the
Act. Market value by its nature is such
which keeps on varying and changing. For
the purpose of determining duty it is the
date on which a document is executed that
is to be taken into account. The market
value has to be determined with reference
to that date.

14. While exercising power under subsection (4) of Section 47-A the Collector
can determine the market value of the
property and the duty payable on the
instrument as a result of such determination
but he has no power to impose penalty. The
period of limitation of four years in subsection (4) to Section 47-A applies to the
action which may be initiated by the
Collector and not to a reference from any
Court or other authorities enumerated in the
sub-section.

15. Presumably the smallness of the
area would not suggest the same by itself to
be a costly property or be situated in a
prestigious or posh locality, where the
upper classes would rub shoulders to
acquire it. While considering the aforesaid
issue in the case of Prakashvati (supra), the
Honble Supreme Court hold that despite
that the Tehsildar at a subsequent stage
reported that the annual rental value of the
house was Rs.1200/- per annum, whereas
10 All. Smt. Shubratam Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Commissioner & Ors. 1071
for house tax purpose it was recorded as
Rs.480/- per annum. The first respondent
ignoring the same worked out the monthly
rental of the property at Rs.830/- per
mensem and its value at Rs.2.5 lack,
ostensibly on the basis that the average cost
of construction of building in the year 1992
was about Rs.400/- per sq. yards, inclusive
of the land cost. This figures too was
arrived at, one knows not from where,
without determining the age of the
building, the quality of construction and
citing appropriate instances. The approach
of the authorities, to say the least, was
highly vain, casual and unsatisfactory and
dehors any constructive material on the
basis of which it could have said that the
decision arrived at by the first respondent
was fair and reasonable. We cannot
approve of such an assumptive posture of
the respondent in treating the appellant as
an evader. We must therefore, upset the
impugned order of the first respondents and
the proceedings for the supposed deficient
payment of stamp, but confining the ends
result to the facts and circumstances of the
instant, when the valuation under Section
341 of the Stamps Rules.

16. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel relied upon the judgment rendered
in the case of P.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd
(supra), operative portion of the which is
extracted here-in-below:

"14.
For
the
purpose
of
determining market value, it is not bare
entry
in
revenue
record,
which
is
conclusive but entire state of affairs, as
were available on the date of execution of
sale deed, have to be looked into. The land
in question has already crossed from being
a mere agricultural land, unused, and
undeveloped.
Instead,
development
activities had already undergone, inasmuch
as, layout plan was approved on 29.5.2007
by Development Authority and thereafter
half of share of this very plot was
purchased on 29.6.2007 after having been
developed as residential colony with
commercial
activities
also
namely
Pushpanjali Upavan Awasiya Colony and
this fact is stated by petitioner himself in
sale deed executed, which is a few days
later
i.e.
29.8.2007.
The
petitioner,
therefore, was under an obligation to
declare all these facts in the instrument in
question and having failed to do so, I have
no
manner
of
doubt
that
he
was
contravened the provisions of section 27 of
the Act, 1899, which were relevant for
determining true market value of the
property in question.

15. It is true that size of land is a
relevant factor for determining its value but
in the present case, nothing otherwise has
been shown by petitioner, either before
authorities below or before this Court to
show that true market value of property in
question could have been lower than what
was stated in the sale deed dated
29.8.2007, which is not a much subsequent
document but was executed within a few
days after the sale deed in question."

17. Perusal of the judgment relied
upon by learned counsel for the petitioners
indicates that Section 47A empowers the
Collector to deal with those cases where the
parties
by
arrangement
deliberately
undervalue the property with a view to
defraud the Government of the legitimate
revenue by way of stamp duty. It is not
correct that the Collector is not empowered
to determine, on a case being referred to
him by the Sub-Registrar under Section 47A(1), that the market value is in fact less
than the minimum value to be determined
by Rule 341 and to find on that basis
1072 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whether the transaction sets forth the
market value truly or not. Similarly, the
hands and power of the Collector are not
confined to the minimum value given in
Rule 341. It can hold it to be more if it is
satisfied on the materials brought before
him to that effect.

It also reveals that the minimum
laid down in Rule 341 is not conclusive or
determinative of the controversy. However,
this can be a circumstance which can be
considered along with others. Rule 341 is
not ultra vires being only meant for a
limited purpose of providing guideline. It
carries out the purpose of Section 47-A.
The
legislature
under
Section
47-A
empowered the Collector to determine the
market value of the property which is the
subject of conveyance and the duty payable
thereon but it did not make any provision
empowering the Collector to impose
penalty.

It
also
reveals
that
while
exercising power under sub-section (4) of
Section 47-A the Collector can determine
the market value of the property and the
duty payable on the instrument as a result
of such determination but he has no power
to impose penalty.

This
judgment
relates
to
determination of stamp duty wherein it has
been held that the land is relevant for
determining its value but facts relating to
the land have be to be disclosed.
Determination of deficiency, imposition of
penalty, legality on the date of transfer of
land it had already developed its potential
utility as a residential
colony
with
commercial activity.

18. I have examined the materials
available on record in the light of
judgments relied upon by learned counsel
for the parties.

19. On examination, it is found that
the petitioner purchased an agriculture plot
of land bearing Khasra No.117/M area 0-40 situated at Village Kure Mau, Pargana
Asiwan, Rasoolabad, Tehsil Hasangaj,
District
Unnao
from
its
recorded
bhoomidhar in possession of Sri Imam Ali
which is adjacent to the land of the
petitioner bearing Khasra Plots No.40,116
and 26. The said Khasra Plot No.117 does
not
situate
in
any
residential
area
demarcated by the Collector. The petitioner
received a notice from opposite party no.2
in regard to deficiency of stamp of
Rs.8745/- and filed her objections and
denied about any deficiency of the stamp
duty.

Opposite party no.2 obtained a
report from Tehsil regarding the valuation
of
the
land
in
question.
Tehsildar,
Hasanganj obtained report from Lekhpal
concerned and submitted the report to
opposite party no.2. In the report, it has
been clearly stated that the land of the
purchaser Shubratan are contiguous with
the land under sale towards East and South
and annexing site plan of the situation of
the land under sale as well as the
agricultural land of the petitioner. Opposite
party no.2 did not accept the report on the
ground that the Tehsildar himself or
through his subordinate officer never got
the spot inspection and fixed the valuation
of the land in question at the exorbitant rate
of Rs.1.25 per sq. yard and total value of
Rs.75,000/-
found
the
deficiency
of
Rs.9437.50/-
and
also
directed
the
petitioner
to
deposit
Rs.8747/-
plus
10 All. Smt. Shubratam Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Commissioner & Ors. 1073
15,000/- total Rs.23747/- and further a sum
of Rs.185/- as deficiency in registration fee.

20. It is pertinent to note here that
almost in each and every case whenever
any report from Tehsil is called for,
normally the Lekhpal go to the spot and
submit his report to Tehsildar who after
examining the same forwarded to the
authority concerned. In the instant case
same practice has been adopted. The
opposite party no.2 even after ignoring the
report of the Tehsildar and even without
asking for a fresh report according to his
own choice, preferred to dispose of the case
without having any evidence, in support of
the alleged objection in the deficiency of
stamp.

21. Even, the opposite party no.1 also
committed error of law in confirming the
order of the opposite party no.2 without
summoning the record of the case and
without looking into the evidence of the
petitioner in support of the claim that the
land under sale was agricultural plot
contiguous with her agricultural holdings
and was not lying in any residential area
declared by Collector by his subsequent
order.

22. Both the opposite parties have
failed to consider that the value of land
under sale has been fixed strictly in
accordance with the order of the Collector
on which proper stamp duty has been paid.
There is no deficiency in the stamp duty as
such the petitioner cannot be compelled to
pay the same.

23. Both the opposite party have also
committed error of law that even after
ignoring the report of the Tehsildar and
even without asking for a fresh report
according to his own choice preferred to
dispose of the case without having any
evidence. The opposite party no.2 in excess
of its jurisdiction imposed upon the fine
upon the petitioner when he was having no
power for imposing the such fine.

24. The binding precedence provided
in the judgments relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioners are fully
applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the case wherein it has been clearly
stipulated that there is no provision in the
Indian Stamp Act to impose fine.

25. Considering in totalities of facts
and circumstances of the case, order dated
7.3.1995 passed by the Chief Controlling
Revenue
Authority/
Commissioner,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow and order
dated 18.9.1994 passed by the Additional
Collector (Finance and Revenue) Unnao is
hereby quashed.

26. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.

27. Needless to say that the Collector
shall determine the market value on the
reference in accordance with law having
regard to the factors which are necessary to
be gone into in the light of the observations
made above and having regard to the law
laid down by the different decisions as may
be cited before him in course of the
proceedings as he may reply upon. The
parties would be at liberaty to represent
their respective cases and lead evidence, if
they are so advised. The collector may ask
for or require further materials for the
purpose of determining the market value, if
he so desires. The materials already on
record may also be taken into account.
Such determination is to be made by the
Collector as early as possible.
1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1074
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ - C No. 1002036 of 2003
And other Cases

Hanif Khan & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Lko & Ors.
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Govind Saran Nigam, Hari Om Rana, Mohd.
Aslam Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Vijay Kumar Pandey,Yogendra Nath
Yadav

Issue for consideration
The key issue for the court to consider (a)
Whether the cancellation of the revenue record
entries and the subsequent orders were passed
in violation of the principles of natural justice.(b)
Whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate had the
jurisdiction to cancel a confirmed sale under
Rule 285-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules,1952.

Headnotes
Civil matter- U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules ,1952- Rule 285-ALand Revenue-Auction Sale-Confirmation
and
Cancellation-Jurisdiction
of
Authorities-An auction sale of land held
for recovery of outstanding loan/land
revenue, which was confirmed by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate cannot subsequently
be
cancelled
by
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate/U.P. Ziladhikari-Rule 285-A of
the Rules 1952 provides that the power
to cancel a confirmed auction sale vests
in the Commissioner-An order cancelling
revenue record entries or a confirmed
auction sale, especially when the entry
has been continuing for more than a year,
passed without issuing a notice or giving
an opportunity of hearing to the affected
party is liable to be set aside-Revenue
authorities cannot cancel a sale certificate
or expunge entries merely on suspicion or
the ground that the auction file is
untraceable.

Held
Petitioner no. 1 and the predecessors of other
petitioners
were
declared
the
auction
purchasers, and the auction was confirmed by
the Sub Divisional Officer on 1 january 1963,
the sale certificate was issued in 1995 and
mutation was effected in their names-The
tehsildar reported doubt over proceedings due
to untraceable file of the auction-The subdivisional officer ordered the cancellation of the
entries made in the record-For cancellation of
entries, particularly when an auction took place
in 1961 and the sale certificate was issued in
1995 due to alluvial action, the courts must
come to a categorical finding that the auction
proceedings had not taken place-The court must
make
an
endeavor
to
call
for
record
cancellation based only on presumption or
assumption is unsustainable in law-The court
held that the entire proceedings were deemed
surreptitious and contrary to the principles of
natural justice. writ petition is allowed.(Para 10
to 20) (E-6)

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules ,1952

List of Keywords
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules ,1952, Auction Sale, Cancellation of Entry,
Natural justice, Rules 285-A, Commissioner,
Remand, Opportunity of hearing, Sub Divisional
Officer/U.P. Ziladhikari.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION- WRIT-C No.- 1002036 of
2003
 Hanif
Khan
&
Ors
Vs.
Additional
Commissioner Lucknow & Ors.
 From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
08.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.