# Sri v. Singh

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 681
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-v-singh-41109
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226-read
with Stamp Act-charge of Stamp dutyadmittedly the plot under transactionagricultural plot-no material available
regarding user of land for the purpose
other than agriculture-duty cost on the
value
of
transaction
and
not
on
valuation-demand of additional charge
on the ground the plot in question
surrendered by Hotel and other potential
value-if
wholly
misconceived-No
additional charge can be demanded.

Held - Para 5

Merely because a plot of land may have
potential of being used for commercial
purpose in future, the valuation for the
purpose of determination of stamp duty
cannot be fixed at such rate which may
be for commercial or residential purpose.
Stamp duty is charged on the value of
the transaction and not on the valuation
which it may acquire in future because of
the land surrounding it in commercial
use. In the present case, it has not been
found that the plot of land is being used
for any other purpose than agriculture
purpose and the stamp duty has been
paid on the valuation as has been fixed
by the Collector at the time when the
transaction had taken place. As such, the
same cannot be said to be unjustified nor
can the stamp duty be levied on the
basis of subsequent notification whereby
the valuation for the purpose of payment
of stamp duty has been increased.

## Text

2 All] Ramjan Ali V. The Commissioner, Agra and others
681
including
the
period
of
suspension
preceding his dismissal, removal or
compulsory retirement, as the case may
be, shall not be treated as a period spent
on duty, unless the competent authority
specifically directs that it shall be treated
so for any specified purpose :
Provided that if the Government
servant so desires, such authority may
direct that the period of absence from
duty including the period of suspension
preceding his dismissal, removal or
compulsory retirement, as the case may
be, shall be converted into leave of any
kind
due
and
admissible
to
the
Government servant.
(6) The payment of allowances under
sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (4) shall be
subject to all other conditions under
which such allowances are admissible.
(7) The amount determined under the
proviso to sub-rule 92 or under sub-rule
(4) shall not be less than the subsistence
allowance
and
other
allowances
admissible under Rule 53.
(8) Any payment made under this
rule to Government servant on his
retirement shall be subject to adjustment
of the amount, if any, earned by him
through an employment during the period
between the date of removal, dismissal or
compulsory retirement, as the case may
be, and the date of reinstatement. Where
the emoluments admissible under this rule
are equal to or less than the amounts
earned during the employment elsewhere,
nothing shall be paid to the Government
servant."

12. A bare perusal of the aforesaid
provision makes it clear that before
passing
an
order
depriving
the
Government servant of full salary for the
period of suspension or when he was out
of employment, a show cause notice has
to be issued to the concerned Government
servant and only thereafter, the competent
authority may pass appropriate order
considering various aspects.

13. Admittedly, no such procedure
has
been
followed,
therefore,
the
impugned order, to the extent the
petitioner has been denied arrears of
salary for the period of suspension as well
as during the period he was out of
employment pursuant to the dismissal
order, which was modified by the
revisional order, is set aside. The writ
petition is, accordingly, allowed partly.

14. However, it is open to the
respondents to pass a fresh order in
respect of arrears of salary of the
petitioner for the period of his suspension
as well as the period when he was out of
employment pursuant to the dismissal
order, which was modified by the
revisional
order
dated
26.5.2004,
complying the procedure prescribed under
Fundamental Rule-54 and in accordance
with law.

There shall be no order as to costs.
Petition partly allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition 56228 of 2003

Ramjan Ali

...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Agra Division and
others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. V. Singh
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
Sri. Dinesh Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri. C.B. Yadav
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226-read
with Stamp Act-charge of Stamp dutyadmittedly the plot under transactionagricultural plot-no material available
regarding user of land for the purpose
other than agriculture-duty cost on the
value
of
transaction
and
not
on
valuation-demand of additional charge
on the ground the plot in question
surrendered by Hotel and other potential
value-if
wholly
misconceived-No
additional charge can be demanded.

Held - Para 5

Merely because a plot of land may have
potential of being used for commercial
purpose in future, the valuation for the
purpose of determination of stamp duty
cannot be fixed at such rate which may
be for commercial or residential purpose.
Stamp duty is charged on the value of
the transaction and not on the valuation
which it may acquire in future because of
the land surrounding it in commercial
use. In the present case, it has not been
found that the plot of land is being used
for any other purpose than agriculture
purpose and the stamp duty has been
paid on the valuation as has been fixed
by the Collector at the time when the
transaction had taken place. As such, the
same cannot be said to be unjustified nor
can the stamp duty be levied on the
basis of subsequent notification whereby
the valuation for the purpose of payment
of stamp duty has been increased.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The petitioner had purchased
share in certain plots of agricultural land
measuring .3918 Hectare vide registered
sale deed dated 8.6.2001. According to
the petitioner the sale consideration paid
was Rs.8,33,332/ -. However, since as per
the existing circle rate the valuation of the
said agricultural plot was Rs.15,06,700/-
hence the stamp duty on the aforesaid
valuation was paid by the petitioner.
Subsequently on 1.4.2002 the circle rates
of several villages for the purposes of
payment of stamp duty had been revised.
Then
on
3.8.2002
the
Additional
Collector served a notice on the petitioner
stating that the valuation of the property
purchased by him was to the tune of
Rs.46,98,000/-
and
thus
there
was
deficiency of Rs.3,13,100/- in payment of
stamp duty. The petitioner submitted his
reply. However, by order dated 31.1.2003,
the Additional Collector held that the
instrument was deficiently stamped by
Rs.3,13,100/ -. Challenging the said order,
the petitioner filed an appeal before the
Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra,
which has also been dismissed by his
order dated 20.10.2003. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid orders, this writ petition has
been filed.

2. I have heard Sri V. Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well
as
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the respondents. Pleadings
have been exchanged and with consent of
the learned counsel for the parties, this
writ petition is being disposed of at the
admission stage itself.

3. From the record, it is clear that as
per the notification dated 5.11.1999
issued by the Collector, Agra the rate
fixed for the irrigated agricultural plots
was Rs. 40,00,000/- per Hectare for
Village Basain, where the property in
question is situated. Although in the said
notification the rates for unirrigated as
well as residential areas for all other
2 All] M/s Shambhu Singh Deena Singh V. State of U.P. and others
683
villages have been mentioned but for the
village Basain the rate for unirrigated and
residential plots has not been mentioned.

4. The impugned orders have been
passed on the basis of some inspection
report submitted by the Deputy Collector
according to which, in and around the plot
in question there are hotels and other
commercial activities going on. However, it
is not disputed by the respondents that the
plot in question is being used for
agricultural purpose and not for commercial
or residential purpose. Even in the
Khatauni, the land in question has been
shown as being used for agricultural
purpose.

5. Merely because a plot of land may
have potential of being used for commercial
purpose in future, the valuation for the
purpose of determination of stamp duty
cannot be fixed at such rate which may be
for commercial or residential purpose.
Stamp duty is charged on the value of the
transaction and not on the valuation which it
may acquire in future because of the land
surrounding it in commercial use. In the
present case, it has not been found that the
plot of land is being used for any other
purpose than agriculture purpose and the
stamp duty has been paid on the valuation
as has been fixed by the Collector at the
time when the transaction had taken place.
As such, the same cannot be said to be
unjustified nor can the stamp duty be levied
on the basis of subsequent notification
whereby the valuation for the purpose of
payment of stamp duty has been increased.

6. Accordingly, the orders passed by
the authorities below imposing additional
stamp duty cannot be sustained and are
thus liable to be quashed.

7. This writ petition thus stands
allowed. The order dated 31.1.2003 passed
by the Additional Collector, City Stamp,
Agra, respondent no. 2 and the order dated
20.10.2003 passed by the respondent no. 1,
the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra are
quashed. It is directed that the amount
deposited by the petitioner under the orders
passed by the appellate court shall be
refunded to the petitioner within three
months from the date of filing of a certified
copy of this order before the respondent no.
2, the Additional Collector, City Stamp,
Agra. In case if the said amount is not
refunded to the petitioner within the
aforesaid period, the petitioner shall be
entitled to 10% interest from the date of
deposit till the date of actual payment.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE R.N. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition 66608 of 2005

M/s Shambhu Singh Deena Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. Sunil Kumar
Sri. Amarjit Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. A.N. Shukla
Sri. Pankaj Rai
S.C.

U.P. High Speed Diesel and Light Diesel
Oil
(Maintenance
of
supplies
and
distribution) Order 1981-read with G.O.
Dated
17.01.2004-cancellation
of