# Smt. Vimla Rani Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 874
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-13
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 17909 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-vimla-rani-agarwal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47325
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 47A,
56(1-A) & 76-A - Delegation of appellate
power
-
power
of
Chief
Controlling
Revenue Authority u/s 45(1)(2), 56(1)
and 70(2) can be delegated to the
subordinate Revenue Authority in view of
Section
76-A -
Notification
dated
24.5.2017 issued u/s 76-A(b), delegating
power of entertaining appeal u/s 56(1-A)
to the subordinate revenue authorities -
As per notification dated 24.5.2017 in
matter up to Rupees Ten lakh, appeal is
cognizable
by
Additional
Divisional
Commissioner
/Deputy
Commissioner
Stamp of Division/circle concerned. (Para
9, 10, 13)
B. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 143, S. 144 -
getting non agricultural land converted as
an agricultural land just for the purpose of
sale deed and evading the stamp duty -
Not approved by court
Original tenure holder sought declaration u/s
143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate
found the land not being used for agricultural
purpose & on 16.7.2005 declared said land as
non-agricultural land - On 07.09.2009, S.D.M.
recalled the earlier declaration & proceeded to
declare the said land as ''agricultural' u/s 144 of
the Act, 1950 - In years 2013 Petitioner
purchased said agricultural land vide registered
sale deed, stamp duty paid according to the
circle
rate
-
Revenue
Authorities
rightly
proceeded to hold deficiency of stamp duty on
the basis of the fact that once the declaration
was made in the year 2005 u/s 143 of Act,
1950, no occasion arose for getting the land
again converted as an agricultural land just for
the purpose of sale deed and evading the stamp
duty (Para 3, 17, 18)
Dismissed. (E-4)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ultimately, rejected the plea to be barred by
limitation but that would not provide fresh
limitation for a claim which had already
become barred by limitation. Under these
circumstances, it cannot be said that the
rejection of the time barred claim by the
impugned order gave the petitioners a new
cause of action for staking a claim for
compensation.

15. For all the reasons noticed above,
we are of the considered view that the
claim of the petitioners raised in this
petition is hopelessly barred by laches and
the same cannot be entertained. The
petition is therefore dismissed as barred
by laches.
----------
(2021)08ILR A874
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 17909 of 2021

Smt. Vimla Rani Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 47A,
56(1-A) & 76-A - Delegation of appellate
power
-
power
of
Chief
Controlling
Revenue Authority u/s 45(1)(2), 56(1)
and 70(2) can be delegated to the
subordinate Revenue Authority in view of
Section
76-A -
Notification
dated
24.5.2017 issued u/s 76-A(b), delegating
power of entertaining appeal u/s 56(1-A)
to the subordinate revenue authorities -
As per notification dated 24.5.2017 in
matter up to Rupees Ten lakh, appeal is
cognizable
by
Additional
Divisional
Commissioner
/Deputy
Commissioner
Stamp of Division/circle concerned. (Para
9, 10, 13)
B. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 143, S. 144 -
getting non agricultural land converted as
an agricultural land just for the purpose of
sale deed and evading the stamp duty -
Not approved by court
Original tenure holder sought declaration u/s
143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate
found the land not being used for agricultural
purpose & on 16.7.2005 declared said land as
non-agricultural land - On 07.09.2009, S.D.M.
recalled the earlier declaration & proceeded to
declare the said land as ''agricultural' u/s 144 of
the Act, 1950 - In years 2013 Petitioner
purchased said agricultural land vide registered
sale deed, stamp duty paid according to the
circle
rate
-
Revenue
Authorities
rightly
proceeded to hold deficiency of stamp duty on
the basis of the fact that once the declaration
was made in the year 2005 u/s 143 of Act,
1950, no occasion arose for getting the land
again converted as an agricultural land just for
the purpose of sale deed and evading the stamp
duty (Para 3, 17, 18)
Dismissed. (E-4)
List of Cases cited:
1. Yogesh Kumar & ors. Vs State of U.P. & ors.
 Writ-C No.33694 of 2013 dt 14.6.2013
2. Neetu Agarwal & anr. Vs Commissioner, Devi
Patan Mandal, Gonda & ors. W.P. No.6600 (MS)
of 2009 dt 17.12.2009
3. Ajay Kumar Srivastava Vs Commissioner,
Allahabad Division & ors. Writ-C No.42865 of
2011 dt 9.5.2013

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)
8 All. Smt. Vimla Rani Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
875

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Manish
Goyal,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
along
with
Sri
J.N.Maurya,
learned
Chief
Standing
Counsel for respondents-State.

2. This writ petition has been filed
assailing the order dated 22.3.2021 passed
by respondent No.2 in Appeal under
Section 56(1-A) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899
(hereinafter called as "Act, 1899") and
order
dated
25.10.2018
passed
by
respondent No.3 in Case No.740 of 2015 in
proceedings under Section 47-A of Act,
1899.

3. The facts in brief giving rise to the
present petition are that petitioner had
purchased the agricultural land of Khasra
No.637 measuring about 0.105 Hectare
situated at Mauza Sunrakh Bangar, Tehsil
and District Mathura vide registered sale
deed dated 08.05.2013. A stamp duty of
Rs.78,200/- was paid according to the
circle rate. The proceedings under the Act,
1899 was initiated at the behest of
Additional Commissioner Stamp, Mathura
on 25.7.2015 and notice under Section 47A of Act, 1899 was issued. An objection
was submitted by the petitioner denying
any deficiency in stamp duty and it was
specifically stated that Khasra Nos.637 and
604, whose original tenure holder was Smt.
Sharda Devi Motiwala and Smt. Manju
Vani Devi and one Ruchi Agrawal. A
declaration under Section 143 of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as "Act,
1950") was made by Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Mathura on 16.7.2005. It was
in the year 2009 that on the application
moved in respect of these two khasra
numbers that on the report of Tehsildar
dated
07.09.2009,
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Mathura proceeded to declare
the said land as ''agricultural' under Section
144 of the Act, 1950. It is further averred
that once the land was declared as
''agricultural', the petitioner had purchased
the same through registered sale deed on
08.05.2013 and had paid stamp duty as per
the
circle
rate.
The
respondent
No.3/Assistant
Commissioner
Stamp
Mathura, after considering the objection
filed by petitioner, vide detailed order dated
25.10.2018, held that there was deficiency
of stamp duty of Rs.3,52,000/- and imposed
penalty of Rs.20,000/- and further directed
that interest at the rate of 1.5% per month
will be levied till the date of payment of
balance amount of stamp duty along with
penalty from the date of execution of the
document.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, an
appeal under Section 56(1-A) of Act, 1899
was preferred before Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority/Deputy Commissioner
Stamp Agra. The Appellate Authority
found no substance in the appeal of the
petitioner and after recording a finding,
dismissed the same upholding the order
passed by respondent No.3.

5. Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
raised
a
preliminary
objection
in
regard
to
maintainability of the proceedings before
respondent No.2 and submitted that Section
56(1-A) of the Act, 1899 envisages that the
appeal has to be decided by Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority and not by
the Deputy Commissioner and thus the
appellate order dated 22.3.2021 was
patently illegal. Learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance upon a decision
of this Court in the case of Neetu Agarwal
and another vs. Commissioner, Devi
Patan Mandal, Gonda and others, Writ
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petition No.6600 (MS) of 2009 decided on
17.12.2009 by the Lucknow Bench of this
Court as well as decision in Writ-C
No.33694 of 2013 (Yogesh Kumar and 3
others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others)
decided on 14.6.2013.

6. The second limb of argument of
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
earlier declaration made under Section 143 of
Act, 1950 in the year 2005 was recalled and
the land was declared as ''agricultural' under
Section 144 of Act, 1950 in the year 2009
and the petitioner having purchased the said
land in the year 2013 was not liable to pay
stamp duty on the basis of the declaration
made under Section 143 of Act, 1950.

7. Apart from these two submissions,
no other point has been advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Replying to the argument, Sri
Manish
Goyal,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General,
submitted
that
preliminary
objection
raised
by
the
petitioner's counsel has no force in view of
Section 76-A of Act, 1899 which is in
regard to delegation of powers. Section 76A of Act, 1899 is extracted here as under :

"76-a. Delegation of certain
powers.- The State Government may, by
notification
in
the
Official
Gazette,
delegate,-

(a) all or any of the powers
conferred on it by Sections 2(9), 33(3),
70(10, 74 and 78 to the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority, and

(b) all or any of the powers
conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority by Sections 45(1)(2), 56(1) and
70(2)
to
such
subordinate
revenue
authority as may be specified in the
notification."

9. He then placed before the Court the
Indian Stamp (Uttar Pradesh Amendment)
Act, 2015 which received the assent of the
President of India on 24th January, 2016 and
published in the U.P. Gazette on 4th February,
2016, whereby in Sub-Clause (b) of Section
76-A figure "56(1)"has been substituted by
"56(1)(1-A)". Relevant amending Act of 2015
is extracted here as under :

"2. Amendment of Section 76-A
to Act No.II of 1899.- In Section 76-A of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended in
its application to Uttar Pradesh, in clause
(b) for the figures "56(1)" the figures and
letter "56(1)(1-A)" shall be substituted."

10. He next placed notification dated
24.5.2017 issued by the State Government
in exercise of power under Clause (b) of
Section 76-A of the Act, 1899 whereby
powers conferred on Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority under sub section (1-A)
of Section 56 has been delegated to
subordinate revenue authorities and matter
up to Rupees Ten lakh was cognizable by
Additional
Divisional
Commissioner
/Deputy
Commissioner
Stamp
of
Division/circle
concerned.
Relevant
notification issued by the State Government
on 24.5.2017 is extracted hereas under :

"In exercise of the power under
clause (b) of Section 76-A of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (Act 2 of 1899) read with
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act,
1897 (Act 10 of 1897) and in supersession
of Notification No. K.N.5-3614/11-2008500(5)91T.C., dated December 8, 2008 and
no.24/2016/889/94-SR-2-2016-500(5)-91
T.C., dated September 16, 2016, the
Governor is pleased to delegate the powers
conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority under sub-section (1-A) of
Section 56 (except the control over the
8 All. Smt. Vimla Rani Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
877
powers exercisable by the Collector under
Chapter V) of the said Act of 1899 to the
subordinate revenue authorities mentioned
in Column-I of the Schedule below in
respect of disputes of stamp duty involving
the amount shown against them in Column2 with respect to their jurisdiction.
Provided that the Revenue Authorities
mentioned in Column-1 shall not entertain
cases of disputes of stamp duty below their
respective
pecuniary
jurisdiction
as
mentioned in Column-2 of the said
Schedule.

SCHEDULE
Column-1
Column-2
Chief
Controllin
g Revenue
Authority
Value of stamp duty involved
in the dispute
Member/M
ember
Judicial,
Board
of
Revenue
Exceeding Rupees Twenty five
lakh
Divisional
Commissio
ner
Up to Rupees Twenty five lakh
Additional
Divisional
Commissio
ner/Deputy
Commissio
ner Stamp
of
Division/ci
rcle
concerned
Up to Rupees Ten lakh

11. Sri Goyal then contended that
reliance placed by petitioner's counsel upon
the decision of Lucknow Bench of this Court
in case of Neetu Agarwal and another
(supra) and Yogesh Kumar and 3 others
(supra)
was
prior
to
Uttar
Pradesh
Amendment made in the Act, 1899 and post
amendment, power of Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority has been delegated to the
various
authorities,
as
given
in
the
notification dated 24.5.2017. He then placed
before the court a decision of this Court in
case of Ajay Kumar Srivastava vs.
Commissioner, Allahabad Division and
others passed in Writ-C No.42865 of 2011
decided on 9.5.2013 wherein coordinate
Bench of this Court had framed point of
determination as to whether Commissioner of
the Division has authority to decide an appeal
filed under Section 56(1-A) of the Act and
the appellate power which is exercisable by
the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is
not delegable. The Court found that the
power
of
Chief
Controlling
Revenue
Authority can be delegated to the subordinate
Revenue Authority in view of Section 76-A
and held as under :

"(3) The Commissioner of the
Division has no authority to decide the
appeal filed under Section 56(1-A) of the
Act and the appellate power which is
exercisable by the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority is not delegable.

....

Point No.3

The order passed by the Collector
under Section 47-A of the Act is both
revisable and appealable under Section 56
of the Act. The revision lies under Section
56(1) of the Act whereas appeal is provided
under Section 56(1-A) of the Act. The
power under both the provisions is
different.

Petitioner has filed revision and
not appeal which means that he invoked the
jurisdiction under Section 56(1) of the Act.

The
powers
of
the
Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority which may
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be delegated to the subordinate revenue
authorities have been specified in Section
76-A of the Act. It provides that the State
Government by notification in the Official
Gazette may delegate all or any of the
powers conferred on the Chief Controlling
Authority by certain Sections of the Act
including one exercisable under Section
56(1) of the Act to subordinate revenue
authorities as may be specified. The said
power has been delegated by notification
dated 17.10.2002 (Annexure - 4 to the writ
petition). Therefore, the argument that the
power is not delegable is misconceived.
The power to decide revision can be
delegated as has rightly been delegated to
the
Commissioner
by
the
aforesaid
notification."

12. Coming to the second point, Sri
Goyal submitted that one Kapil Deo
Upadhyay had reported the matter to the
Lokayukta in regard to the land, which
were declared under Section 143 as non
agricultural
land
and
subsequent
declaration being made under Section 144
of Act, 1950 and thereafter sale deeds were
being executed to escape stamp duty on
which, after inquiry, many matters have
come into light where such sale deeds had
been executed so as to escape stamp duty.
The said complaint was made in respect of
the land in which declaration under Section
144 of Act, 1950 was made between the
years 2007-08 to 2013-14 and this was not
an
isolated
case
where
the
Stamp
Authorities
had
proceeded
to
hold
deficiency of stamp duty.

13. Having heard counsel for the
parties and from perusal of record I find
that the power of delegation vest under
Section 76-A of the Act, 1899 and any
power, which is conferred on Chief
Controlling
Revenue
Authority
under
Section 45(1)(2), 56(1) and 70(2) can be
delegated to such subordinate revenue
authorities, as may be specified in the
notification.

14. By the Uttar Pradesh Amendment
made in Section 76-A in the year 2015 in
Clause (b) of Section 76-A, figure "56(1)"
was substituted by figures and letter
"56(1)(1-A)". The presidential assent to the
said
amendment
was
received
on
24.01.2016 pursuant to which a notification
was issued under Clause (b) of Section 76A, delegating power of entertaining the
appeal under Section 56(1-A) to the
subordinate
revenue
authorities
on
24.5.2017. The Schedule to the said
notification
provided
in
Column-1
authorities and in Column 2 the valuation,
for which the authorities had jurisdiction to
entertain the matters.

15. As the present case was for
deficiency of Rs.3,52,000/-, the appeal,
which was filed by the petitioner before
Deputy Commissioner Stamps Agra was
maintainable in view of U.P. Amendment
as well as Section 76-A of the Act, 1899.
The argument of learned counsel that only
the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal
under Section 56(1-A) falls flat in view of
Section
76-A
and
the
subsequent
amendment of 2015.

16. The present proceedings was
started in the year 2015 and the appeal was
filed in the year 2018 thus respondent No.2
had jurisdiction to decide the same. This
Court in Ajay Kumar Srivastavav (supra)
had already held that the power of
delegation was there in view of Section 76A of the Act, 1899 and reliance placed
upon decision of Neetu Agarwal and
another (supra) cannot be accepted as the
8 All. Smt. Kalawati Devi Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
879
same was given in the year 2009 and U.P.
Amendment came in the year 2015 and the
notification was issued by the Statement
Government on 24.5.2017, well before the
appeal was filed by petitioner before
respondent No.2.

17. Now coming to the second
argument raised by learned counsel that
petitioner has purchased the land in
question after declaration under Section
144 of Act, 1950 and thus was not entitled
for payment of stamp duty on the basis of
report that the land in question was a ''non
agricultural' land. Here it would be
necessary to refer to the action initiated on
complaint made to Lokayukt in respect of
evasion of stamp duty in District Mathura
from the year 2007-08 to 2013-14 wherein
it was found that in number of cases, after
getting declaration under Section 143 of the
Act, 1950, the land was being transferred
through sale, was again converted as an
agricultural land and declaration is sought
under Section 144 of Act, 1950. No
plausible explanation has been accorded by
the counsel as to what was the need in the
year 2009 to have the land converted back
as an agricultural land when once the
declaration under Section 143 had already
been made on 16.7.2005. From the perusal
of the order passed by Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Mathura dated 16.7.2005 it is
clear that on the application of the original
land holders, it was found that the land in
question was not being used for agricultural
purpose and on the basis of the report being
received from the office of Tehsildar after
inquiry that the declaration was made by
the concerned officer. The subsequent
order made under Section 144 of Act, 1950
does not record any ground for making
such declaration once it was found to be
land not being used for agricultural
purpose.

18. As the learned Additional
Advocate General has pointed out that this
is not a solitary case and on an inquiry by
the Lokayukt, it was found that between
2007 to 2014 there were number of cases
where such declaration was made under
Section 144 of Act, 1950 for the purpose of
escaping the stamp duty, I find that the
District
Revenue
Authorities
rightly
proceeded to hold deficiency of stamp duty
on the basis of the fact that once the
declaration was made in the year 2005
under Section 143 of Act, 1950, no
occasion arise for getting the land again
converted as an agricultural land just for
the purpose of sale deed and evading the
stamp duty.

19. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and perusing the
orders impugned, I find that no interference
is required in the orders passed by
respondents No.2 and 3.

20. Writ petition is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A879
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Writ C No. 26413 of 2020

Smt. Kalawati Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anupam Kulsreshtha, Sri Arpit Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents: