# Sri Purushottam Agarwal & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 607
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-30
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 20121 of 2000
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-purushottam-agarwal-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49718
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. The Indian Stamp Act, 1889 - Section
47-A
(1)
-
Under-Valuation
of
the
instrument - U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, Rule
341 (iii) (a)- minimum market value of
immovable property - According to Rule
341 (iii) (a) of 1942 Rules, where the
building is assessed to house tax by the
municipal board and it is occupied by the
owner or is wholly or partly, let out to the
tenant, then 25 times the actual or
assessed annual rental value, whichever is
higher, would be considered for payment
of stamp duty - in the year 1997, the U.P.
Stamp Rule 1942 were repealed (Para 16)

B. U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 - Rule 341 (iii)
(a)- Property in question was purchased
on 17.04.1993 & the stamp duty was
payable
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of Rule 341 (iii) (a) of U.P.
Stamp Rule, 1942 - Property in question
was a building & was assessed for the
purposes of House Water etc - Nagar
Palika assessed Rs. 3,600/- to be the
annual rental value of the property in
question - On multiplying Rs.3,600/- into
25 times, the value of the property
becomes
Rs.
90,000
-
petitioner
purchased the property for Rs. 1,43,005
and on that amount, he paid the stamp
duty which was more than the market
value computed in accordance with the
Rule
341
(iii)
(a)
-
Sub
Registrar
imaginarily opined that the rent of the
room in question would not be less than
Rs.2,500/- per month - learned court
below
assuming
the
rental
value
Rs.2,500/- per month calculated that
there is deficiency in payment of stamp
duty and also imposed the penalty - For
determining the rate of rent to be
Rs.2,500/- the learned Sub Registrar did
not collect any DATA from the nearby
shop or vicinity - Impugned orders
quashed - respondents directed to refund
the recovered amount to the petitioners
alongwith the interest at the rate of six
percent per annum (Para 31)

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

## Text

2 All. Sri Purushottam Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
607
mentioned therein that the plot on which
the petitioners had raised unauthorized
construction is part of plot allotted to Smt.
Amarjeet Kaur way back on September 28,
2007, hence the claim that petitioners are
entitled to invoke Section 17 of the 1973
Act for restoration of the land to them on
the ground that the same has not been
utilized is totally misconceived and hence,
deserves to be rejected."

8. The handing over of acquired land
to the Development Authority for a planned
project, as big as a technical zone,
including the land in dispute, does not
mean that the land is unutilized because of
delays in the project implementation or
priorities.

9. In this view of the matter, no case
for interference is made out.

10. In the result, this petition fails and
is dismissed.

11.There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 607
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 20121 of 2000

Sri Purushottam Agarwal & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Madhav Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. The Indian Stamp Act, 1889 - Section
47-A
(1)
-
Under-Valuation
of
the
instrument - U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, Rule
341 (iii) (a)- minimum market value of
immovable property - According to Rule
341 (iii) (a) of 1942 Rules, where the
building is assessed to house tax by the
municipal board and it is occupied by the
owner or is wholly or partly, let out to the
tenant, then 25 times the actual or
assessed annual rental value, whichever is
higher, would be considered for payment
of stamp duty - in the year 1997, the U.P.
Stamp Rule 1942 were repealed (Para 16)

B. U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 - Rule 341 (iii)
(a)- Property in question was purchased
on 17.04.1993 & the stamp duty was
payable
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of Rule 341 (iii) (a) of U.P.
Stamp Rule, 1942 - Property in question
was a building & was assessed for the
purposes of House Water etc - Nagar
Palika assessed Rs. 3,600/- to be the
annual rental value of the property in
question - On multiplying Rs.3,600/- into
25 times, the value of the property
becomes
Rs.
90,000
-
petitioner
purchased the property for Rs. 1,43,005
and on that amount, he paid the stamp
duty which was more than the market
value computed in accordance with the
Rule
341
(iii)
(a)
-
Sub
Registrar
imaginarily opined that the rent of the
room in question would not be less than
Rs.2,500/- per month - learned court
below
assuming
the
rental
value
Rs.2,500/- per month calculated that
there is deficiency in payment of stamp
duty and also imposed the penalty - For
determining the rate of rent to be
Rs.2,500/- the learned Sub Registrar did
not collect any DATA from the nearby
shop or vicinity - Impugned orders
quashed - respondents directed to refund
the recovered amount to the petitioners
alongwith the interest at the rate of six
percent per annum (Para 31)

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

1. Vijay Kumar & Surendra Kumar Both sons of
Shri Daulat Ram Vs Commissioner, Meerut
Division & Additional District Magistrate (Finance
and Revenue) MANU/0682/2008

2. Mahabir Prasad Vs Collector, Cuttack [1987] 2
SCR 289

3. Ram Khelawan @ Bachchan Vs St. of U.P.
through Collector, Hairpur & anr. 2005 (98) RD
511

4. Prakashwati Vs Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority Board of Revenue, Allahabad 1996
(87) R.D 419

5. Collector of Nilgiris at Ootacamund Vs
Mahavir
Plantations
Pvt.
Ltd.
MANU/TN/0285/1982

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J. )

1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jitendra
Narayan Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed to
quash the order dated 19.06.1999 passed by
Additional District Magistrate (Finance &
Revenue), Agra and order dated 11.01.2000
passed
by
the
Commissioner,
Agra
Division,
Agra,
whereby
both
the
authorities in relation to assignment dated
17th April, 1993, regarding unexpired
lessee rights in the land with constructed
con-structure assigned in favour of the
petitioners for a sum of Rs.1,43,005/-
concluded the deficiency of stamp duty.

3. In brief the facts of the case are that
the Society known as Alok Sahkari Grah
Nirman Samiti Ltd., Agra, has acquired
lease hold rights for a period of eighty
years
from
the
Agra
Development
Authority, Agra in land of Block No. 34 at
Sanjay Place, Agra, by means of registered
lease deed dated 16.06.1980 and executed
an agreement deed of lease on 17.04.1993
(Annexure No.1). The Sub Registrar, Agra
exercised power under Section 33, 47-A
(A) & (4) of the Stamp Act for realization
of Stamp Duty by means of reference
(Annexure No.2), which is patiently illegal
and without jurisdiction.

4. In pursuance of the reference,
Stamp Case No. 1255 of 1995-96 was
registered and the notices were served upon
the
petitioners,
who
filed
objection
(Annexure No. 3) to the writ petition in
support of the reference, no reference was
laid on behalf of the respondents, however,
the respondent no. 3 vide its judgment and
order dated 19.06.1999 (Annexure no. 4),
imposed Rs.96,540/- towards deficiency of
stamp duty.

5. The petitioners challenged its
validity by means of Stamp Revision No.
30 of 1999-2000 on 22.09.1999. In-spite of
pendency of revision, the officials of
respondent no. 1 recovered the amount
under threat of coercive action quite
illegally without affording opportunity to
obtain interim orders. Respondent no. 1 is
bound to return to the petitioner's such
amount with interest @ 18 per cent per
annum. The revisional court vide its order
dated 11th January, 2000 (Annexure-05) to
this writ petition, the revision is not
maintainable.

6. Both the authorities below have
failed to exercise its mined and have failed
to consider the legality of the proceedings
as the assignment-deed is not chargeable
with stamp duty on it's market value under
Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The
respondent nos. 2 and 3 failed to consider
2 All. Sri Purushottam Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
609
that land underneath the construction was
possessed by the Society under a lease
agreement from the Agra Development
Authority, Agra and the Society assigned
unexpired lease right in respect of the land
together with constructions after charging
the lease area premium and costs of
constructions, under this circumstances the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 ought to have drop
the proceeding, but instead of doing so
acted illegally while imposing deficiency of
Stamp Duty against the petitioners. The
determining the deficiency of Stamp Duty
is absolutely uncalled for and is applicable
as it is not supported by any evidence to
establish that the rate of rent assumed by
them.

7. The respondents have failed to
consider that the petitioner's acquired
limited rights to enjoy its usufruct and also
failed to consider that the property in
question fetch rent @ 2,500/- per month.
The respondent no. 2 committed error
apparent on the face of record while
dismissing the revision on the ground of its
being not maintainable. The respondents
have acted illegally while treating the
transaction as the transaction of sale of the
building without considering that the
Society from which the petitioners have got
it's right assigned, was not having any
saleable interest in the land and in so far as
the value of construction is concerned there
was no dispute raised from the side of the
respondents. The petitioners having no
other alternative remedy, have filed this
writ petition. The aforesaid annexures have
been annexed with the writ petition.

8. The respondents have filed counter
affidavit on 13th January, 2004 and have
denied the allegations of the writ petition
and have admitted that the said land was
acquired for lease for eighty years. The
action was initiated as per the provisions of
Stamp Act. The respondents have imposed
deficit stamp duty with penalty as the
petitioners had intentionally evaded the
duty. The R.C is served upon the
petitioners as per the procedure laid down
in the Stamp Act. The market value of the
property in question is assessed as per the
procedure of Stamp Act. The property was
for the use as commercial purposes . The
land and shops are also in the lease-deed.
Only the land was given on lease not the
shops constructed for the purposes of
commercial use, hence the market value
can be assessed as present basis.

9. Article 226 of the Constitution of
India shall not apply to this case, hence the
present writ petition is dismissed.

10. The petitioners have filed
rejoinder affidavit alongwith application
no. 86990 of 2008 and have denied the
averments of counter affidavit and have
reiterated the facts already enumerated in
the writ petition and have said that on
17.04.1993 at the time of execution of said
deed, the area was not developed and even
the necessary facilities such as electricity,
water, sever etc. were not available at the
site of building. No basis for the assumed
rental value of the building has been
assigned by the Collector, Agra. The
market value of the property assessed by
the Collector is contrary to the report of the
Sub Registrar. Neither the report of the
Sub-Registrar recites the market value of
the property nor it mentions the rental value
either assessed, assumed or actual. No basis
has been assigned by the respondents to
support the assumed rental value of the
property. The assumed rental value on the
face of it is highly excessive and does not
correspond to the rental value of the
property on the date of its purposes. Any
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
change in the nature, value or use of the
property subsequent to the date of its
purchase is absolute irrelevant but the
authorities concerned have influenced its
judgment by taking into consideration the
development subsequent to purchase of
building by the petitioners. Since the
predecessor of the petitioners possessed
lessee
rights
in
the
underneath
the
construction of the building, the transfer of
the said right cannot be valued at the higher
rate, so far as the value of the construction
of building is concerned. The petitioners
have paid the stamp duty on the basis of
costs
of
construction
together
with
unexpired lessee rights. The value of
building assessed by the respondents is
without any evidence and basis, the
impugned
judgment
and
orders
are
patiently illegal and perverse, contrary to
the facts and are liable to be set aside.

11. Heard and perused the file.

12. The provision of the Rule 341
provides the method for computation of the
market value of a property for the purpose
and determination of the stamp duty of an
instrument.

13. Rule 341 is as under:-

For the purposes of payment of
stamp duty, the minimum market value of
immovable property forming the subject of
an instrument of conveyance, exchange,
gift, settlement, award or trust, referred to
in Section 47-A (1) of the Act, shall be
deemed to be not less than that as arrived
on the basis of the multiples given below:-

(i) Where the subject is land:-

(a)
in
case
of
Bhumidari-800 times the land revenue.

(b) in case of Sirdari
land-400 times the land revenue.

(c) where the land is not
assessed to revenue but net profits have
arisen from it during the three years
immediately preceding the date of the
instruments 25 times the annual average of
such profits.

(d) where the land is
not assessed to revenue and no profits have
arisen from it during the three years
immediately preceding the date of the
instrument 400 times the assumed annual
rent.

(e) where the land is
non-agricultural and is situate within the
limits of any local body referred to in
clause (c) of sub-rule (i) of rule 340-equal
to the value worked out on the basis of the
average price per square meter, prevailing
in the locality on the date of the instrument.

(ii) where the subject is grove or
garden:

(a)
If
assessed
to
revenue the value of the land shall be
worked out in the manner laid down in rule
341 (i) (a) and the value of the trees
standing thereon shall be worked out
according to the average price of the trees
of the same size, and age prevailing in the
locality on the date of the instruments.

(b) If not assessed to
revenue or is exempted from it the value
there of shall be determined at 20 times the
annual rent plus the premium or 20 times of
the annual average of income which has
arisen during the three years immediately
preceding the date of instrument and the
value of the trees thereon shall be
2 All. Sri Purushottam Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
611
determined in accordance with rule 341 (ii)
(a)

(iii)
Where
the
subject
is
Building:

(a) Where the building
is assessed to house tax and is occupied by
the owner or is wholly or partly let out to
tenants-25 times the actual or assessed
annual rental value, whichever is higher as
the case may be.

(b) Where the building
is not assessed to house tax and is occupied
by the owner or is wholly or partly let out
to tenants-25 times the actual or assumed
annual rental value, whichever is higher as
the case may be.

14. It is noteworthy that in the year
1997, the U.P. Stamp Rule 1942 were
repealed. Since it is a matter of 1993 and
the property in question was purchased on
17.04.1993, therefore the stamp duty would
be
payable
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of U.P. Stamp Rule, 1942.

15. It is undisputed that the property
in question is a building which has been
assessed for the purposes of House Water
and
other
related
municipal
taxes,
therefore, the provisions of Rule 341 (iii)
(b) are applicable to the property in
question.

16. The aforesaid provisions provide
that if the market value of the property has
been assessed by the municipal board, it
can only be computed by multiplying 25
times of the assessed or the actual
reasonable value. From the extracts of
Municipal Board's Register the valuation of
the property in question is Rs. 3,600/- (Rs.
900X 12) only.

17. Therefore, the valuation of the
property as per Rules becomes Rs.90,000/-
only. The learned court below assuming the
rental
value
Rs.2,500/-
per
month
calculated that there is deficiency in
payment of stamp duty and also imposed
the penalty though the penalty has been
removed by Commissioner, Agra Division
Agra / (C.C.R.A). It is clear from the
aforesaid discussions that on the basis of
accompanying report of Sub Registrar,
A.D.M (F&R) accepted the rental value of
the room in question Rs.2,500/- per month.
For determining the rate of rent to be
Rs.2,500/- the learned Sub Registrar did
not collect any DATA from the nearby
shop or vicinity. If the rental value was
wrongly mentioned by the Nagar Palika
Parishad, it was the duty of the respondents
to raise an objection and to get it corrected,
but instead of adopting the reasonable and
sound method in legal way, the Sub
Registrar imaginarily opined that the rent
of the room in question would not be less
than Rs.2,500/- per month.

18. This Court is of the opinion that if
the property in question would not have
been assessed by the Nagar Palika
Parishad, there was an option to Sub
Registrar and the respondent to apply the
provisions of Section 341 (iii) (b).

19. When the property in question
was assessed by the Nagar Palika, which is
very much clear from the extract of the
concerned Register and the U.P. Stamp
Rules, 1942, was into exists, there was no
opportunity to the respondents and the Sub
Registrar except to act in accordance with
the Rule 341 (iii) (a) according to which
where the building is assessed to house tax
and it is occupied by the owner or is wholly
or partly, let out to the tenant, 25 times the
actual or assessed annual rental value
whichever is higher as the case may be,
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would be considered for payment of stamp
duty.

20. In this case the Nagar Palika has
assessed Rs. 3,600/- annual rental value of
the property in question, therefore as per the
existing law in the year 1993, the petitioner
was under an obligation to pay the stamp
duty in accordance with Rule 341 (iii) (a). If
we multiply Rs.3,600/- into 25 times, the
value of the property becomes Rs. 90,000/-.
The petitioner has purchased the property for
Rs. 1,43,005/- and on this amount, he has
paid the stamp duty accordingly, which is
more than the market value computed in
accordance with the Rule 341 (iii) (a).

21. Since the rules of U.P. Stamp Rules,
1997 had not come into force and the Sub
Registrar had not given any DATA regarding
rent of the property in question, the
respondents had to act upon in accordance
with the provisions of U.P. Stamp Rules,
1942.

22. In Vijay Kumar and Surendra
Kumar Both sons of Shri Daulat Ram Vs.
Commissioner,
Meerut
Division
and
Additional District Magistrate (Finance and
Revenue) MANU/0682/2008 decided on
27.03.2008, it is held that the burden to prove
that the market value more than the minimum
as prescribed by Collector under Rule is on
Collector.
Report
of
Sub-Registrar
or
Tehsildar, itself is not sufficient to discharge
that burden.

23. In Mahabir Prasad Vs. Collector,
Cuttack [1987] 2 SCR 289, it is held that the
''market value' of land means a price at which
both buyers and sellers are willing to do
business; the market or current price.

24.

In Ram
Khelawan allias
Bachchan Vs. State of U.P. through
Collector, Hairpur and Anr. 2005 (98) RD
511, it has been held that report of
Tahsildar may be a relevant factor for
initiation of proceedings under Section 47A of the Act but it cannot be relied upon to
pass an order under the aforesaid section.
In other words the said report cannot form
itself basis of the order passed under
Section 47-A of the Act.

25. In Prakashwati Vs. Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority Board of
Revenue, Allahabad 1996 (87) R.D 419
"Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that
situation of a property in an area close to a
decent colony not by it self would make it
part thereof and should not be a factor for
approach of the authority in determining
the market value.

26. In Collector of Nilgiris at
Ootacamund Vs. Mahavir Plantations Pvt.
Ltd. MANU/TN/0285/1982, the Madras
High Court while dealing with the
valuation guidelines has held that the
Collector under Section 47-A can not
shrink his responsibility of determining the
market value by adopting the guidelines
nor can he fix the market value without
proper materials and evidence to support it.
The very idea of an inquiry contemplated
by Section 47-A and the detailed procedure
prescribed in the relevant rules goes to
show that the Collector's finding must be
verifiable by evidence. The valuation
guidelines
prepared
by
the
Revenue
officials at the instance of the Board of
Revenue were not prepared on the basis of
any open hearing of the parties concerned,
or of any documents with a view to
eliciting the market value of the properties
concerned. They were based on data
gathered
broadly
with
reference
to
classification of land, grouping of land and
the like. This being so, the Collector acting
2 All. Lal Singh & Ors. Vs. Competent Authority Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976,
 Aligarh & Ors.
613
under Section 47-A cannot regard the
guidelines valuation as the last word on the
subject of market value.

27. From the aforesaid discussions, it
is very much clear that respondents has
flouted the provisions of U.P. Stamp Rules,
1942, which was prevalent at the time of
execution of the sale-deed.

28. On the basis of aforesaid
discussions, this Court is of the opinion that
the respondents have not acted properly
and in accordance with the existing U.P.
Stamp Rules, 1942 and have passed the
impugned orders in arbitrary and illegal
manner, therefore the writ petition is liable
to be allowed.

O R D E R

29. The writ petition is allowed and
the impugned judgement and orders dated
19.06.1996, Annexure No. 4 and the order
dated 11.01.2000 Annexure No. 5 to this
writ petition are hereby quashed.

30. In this case Rs.96,500/- has been
recovered from the petitioners for which
they were not entitled as per this decision.
The petitioners have prayed to return the
said amount alongwith eighteen percent
(18%) annual interest.

31. In the opinion of this Court, the
respondents are liable to refund the
recovered amount of Rs.96,500/- to the
petitioners alongwith the interest arising
therefrom at the rate of six percent per
annum . Therefore, it is also ordered that
the respondents shall pay the above amount
of Rs. 96,500/- to the petitioners alongwith
six percent (6%) simple interest from the
date of realisation till the date of refund of
the said amount to the petitioners, failing
which the petitioners would be entitled to
recover the same from the respondents as
per the Rules.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 613
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Writ-C No. 69115 of 2009

Lal Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Competent Authority Urban Land (Ceiling
& Regulation) Act, 1976, Aligarh & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri J.K. Shisodhaa, Sri B. Upadhyay, Sri
Rajneesh Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 - Section 10 - Acquisition of
vacant land in excess of ceiling limit -
Urban Land Ceiling & Regulation (Repeal)
Act, 1999 - Constitution of India, Art. 226
- Writ petition - Delay & Laches -
notification u/s 10(1) with regard to the
acquisition of land in excess of ceiling
limit was issued followed by notice u/s
10(5) of the Act, issued on 31.05.1993 &
the possession of the land was taken by
the competent authority not faced with
any objections - writ petition, filed after
lapse of 13 years, with prayer not to
dispossess from the land declared surplus
in proceedings under 1976 Act - Held -
writ petition hit by inordinate unexplained
laches
-
"delay
defects
equity"
-
discretionary relief can be had, provided
one has not by his act or conduct given a
go-by to his rights - Equity favours a