# T.R.C. Mahavidyalaya Satrikh, Nawabganj v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 345
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-20
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1003921 of 2015
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/t-r-c-mahavidyalaya-satrikh-nawabganj-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49664
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Sections 33 & 47-A - UP Stamp
(Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 - Rule
7(3)(c) - Stamp deficiency - Property in
question abuts a Khadanja road, which is
not a metalled road - The Circular dated
01.08.2010 has explained the meaning of
the term road as a metalled or RCC road -
Held, once the authorities themselves in
their order u/s 47A of the Act of 1899
indicate
location
of
the
property in
question
not
to
be
abutting
a
metalled/RCC road, there was no occasion
for them to have established market value
in
terms
of
non-agricultual
property
abutting a road - High Court directed the
authority
to
re-determine
additional
stamp
duty
taking
the
property
in
question to be non-agricultural but not in
the vicinity of a road. (Para 11 and 13)
B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 33
& 47-A - Imposition of penalty - Reason,
how for necessary - No concealment of
fact - Effect
- Held, no reasoning
whatsoever
has
been
attributed
for
imposition of such penalty particularly in
view of the fact that there was no
concealment by the petitioner-institution
in the instrument of transfer - Held
further, the orders also do not indicate
any concealment of fact having been
made in the instrument of transfer and
therefore in the considered opinion of this
Court, there was no occasion for the
authorities to have imposed penalty. (Para
12)
Writ petition partly allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

2 All. T.R.C. Mahavidyalaya Satrikh, Nawabganj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
345
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 345
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 1003921 of 2015

T.R.C. Mahavidyalaya Satrikh, Nawabganj
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ram Narain Gupta, M.K. Dixit, Ram Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Sections 33 & 47-A - UP Stamp
(Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 - Rule
7(3)(c) - Stamp deficiency - Property in
question abuts a Khadanja road, which is
not a metalled road - The Circular dated
01.08.2010 has explained the meaning of
the term road as a metalled or RCC road -
Held, once the authorities themselves in
their order u/s 47A of the Act of 1899
indicate
location
of
the
property in
question
not
to
be
abutting
a
metalled/RCC road, there was no occasion
for them to have established market value
in
terms
of
non-agricultual
property
abutting a road - High Court directed the
authority
to
re-determine
additional
stamp
duty
taking
the
property
in
question to be non-agricultural but not in
the vicinity of a road. (Para 11 and 13)
B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 33
& 47-A - Imposition of penalty - Reason,
how for necessary - No concealment of
fact - Effect
- Held, no reasoning
whatsoever
has
been
attributed
for
imposition of such penalty particularly in
view of the fact that there was no
concealment by the petitioner-institution
in the instrument of transfer - Held
further, the orders also do not indicate
any concealment of fact having been
made in the instrument of transfer and
therefore in the considered opinion of this
Court, there was no occasion for the
authorities to have imposed penalty. (Para
12)
Writ petition partly allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Ganga Ram Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported in
2020 (38) LCD 1991
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner and learned State Counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed assailing
order dated 12.10.2012 passed under
Sections 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp
Act,1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act
of 1899) as well as order dated 16.03.2015
passed under Section 56 of the Act of 1899.
A further prayer seeking a direction to
opposite parties not to adopt any coercive
measure against petitioner in respect of
recovery citation dated 29.12.2012 has also
been sought.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that the property in question is a
part of Gata No.88 having an area of 0.731
hectare situate in the Village concerned
which was purchased by one Umesh
Chandra Chaturvedi by means of registered
sale deed dated 03.01.2005. Since the said
property was being utilised for agricultural
purposes, the purchaser filed an application
dated 09.06.2005 for declaration under
Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and
Land
Reforms
Act.
The
said
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application was allowed by means of order
dated 28.11.2005 but subsequently another
application was filed by the said person
under Section 144 of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act pertaining
to a portion of aforesaid property for
declaration
as
agricultural.
The
said
application was also allowed on 26.05.2011
whereafter
the
petitioner-institution
purchased a portion of the said Gata No.88
measuring area of 0.522 hectare by means
of instrument of transfer dated 25.06.2011.
Upon presentation of the said document for
registration, spot inspection was made and
reference was initiated under Section
47A(3) after its registration and by means
of order impugned under Section 47A of
the Act of 1899, additional stamp duty and
penalty has been imposed upon petitionerinstitution.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that impugned orders have been
passed primarily on the ground that a College
stands
established
over
the
purchased
property and as such it cannot be deemed to
be agricultural in nature. It is further
submitted that additional stamp duty has also
been imposed treating the property to be nonagricultural and imposing stamp duty as per
the situation of the property abutting a road
although additional stamp duty on the
instrument has been paid as per actual
situation of the property away from the road.
It is submitted that the authorities fell in error
in not considering the fact that College is not
established over the entire 0.522 hectare and
even as per the spot inspection report, is
situated only over 0.209 hectare while rest of
the property is being utilised for agricultural
purposes. It is further submitted that even the
spot inspection report is in violation of Rule
7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to
as the Rules of 1997).

5. Learned State Counsel appearing
on behalf of opposite parties has refuted the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for petitioner with submission that spot
inspection report clearly indicates the fact
that College stands established over the
property purchased by means of the
instrument of transfer dated 25.06.2011 and
also indicates that no agricultural activity is
being undertaken thereupon. It is thus
submitted that there is no error in the order
particularly when the order also notices the
fact that the property in question was
converted to non-agricultural barely a
month
before
the
execution
of
the
instrument of transfer.

6. Upon consideration of the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, it is evident from record
that the property in question earlier was
declared to be non-agricultural under
Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act by means of order
dated 28.11.2005 but a portion thereof, i.e.
0.522 hectare was thereafter declared to be
agricultural with application under Section
144 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms
Act
being
allowed
on
26.05.2011. The instrument of transfer
with regard to said property was thereafter
executed on 25.06.2011.

7. A perusal of the spot inspection
report dated 11.07.2011 indicates that out
of total area of 0.522 hectare purchased by
petitioner-institution
by
means
of
instrument
of
transfer,
the
College
building stands established on 0.209
hectare on which orders under Section 144
of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act were passed on 26.05.2011.
The
report
also
indicates
that
no
agricultural activity is ongoing on the said
plot.
2 All. T.R.C. Mahavidyalaya Satrikh, Nawabganj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
347

8. It is also evident that order under
Sections 47-A of the Act of 1899 has been
passed primarily on the ground that a
college building stands established over the
property in question and no agricultural
activity could be seen on the property at the
time of spot inspection. Suspicion has also
been cast by the impugned order pertaining
to fact that nonagricultural property was
changed into agricultural just a month
before the execution of instrument of
transfer. The same reasoning has been
followed by the appellate court while
passing orders under Section 56 of the Act
of 1899.

9. So far as the question with regard
to following of the mandatory provisions
of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 is
concerned, this Court in Ganga Ram v.
State of U.P. and others reported in
2020 (38) LCD 1991 has clearly held the
same to be mandatory in nature. In the
present case, however although it appears
that no prior notice was provided to
petitioner-institution but it is also evident
from the record that spot inspection
report so far as it attributes the building
having been constructed over a portion of
purchased property is admitted by the
petitioner itself, particularly with regard
to area of construction. Since the
petitioner has already admitted the factual
situation with regard to construction of
building, in the considered opinion of this
Court, no prejudice has been caused to
the
petitioner-institution
for
noncompliance of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules
of 1997. Although the aforesaid rule is
mandatory in nature but if the spot
inspection report is not being disputed by
the assessee, no prejudice would be
caused to him and, therefore, the orders
of assessment of stamp duty cannot be
vitiated only on that ground.

10. In the present case, it is seen from
the record and is admitted by petitioner that
out of entire Gata No.88 having area of
0.731 hectare, the instrument of transfer in
question pertained only to 0.522 hectare on
which the College building is constructed
over a portion of 0.209 hectare. Although
learned counsel for petitioner submits that
the building is constructed only over a
portion of the property while the rest is
under use as agricultural, no provision
under
the
Act
could
be
indicated
whereunder different stamp duty can be
imposed on the same parcel of land. Once it
is admitted by petitioners that a building is
constructed over the property in question
and spot inspection report clearly indicates
that no agricultural activity is being
conducted over the non-constructed portion
as on the date of instrument of transfer, no
exception can be taken to impugned orders
with regard to same. As such, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the
authorities were right in concluding that the
property is in use for non-agricultural
purposes.

11. So far as submissions of learned
counsel for petitioner is concerned regarding
imposition of stamp duty on the basis of
property abutting a road, it is discernible from
circle
rate
notified
with
effect
from
01.08.2010 that different valuation has been
indicated for non-agricultural properties
abutting a road and those not abutting a road.
In the present case, a reading of order passed
under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899 itself
indicate that the property in question abuts a
Khadanja road, which is not a metalled road.
The Circular dated 01.08.2010 has explained
the meaning of the term road as a metalled or
RCC road. Once the authorities themselves in
their order under Section 47A of the Act of
1899 indicate location of the property in
question not to be abutting a metalled/RCC
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
road, there was no occasion for them to have
established market value in terms of nonagricultual property abutting a road. To that
extent, there is certain error in the orders
impugned.

12. It is also noticeable that by means of
impugned order, penalty to the tune of
Rs.6,42,400/- has been imposed upon the
petitioner-institution. However, no reasoning
whatsoever has been attributed for imposition
of such penalty particularly in view of the
fact that there was no concealment by the
petitioner-institution in the instrument of
transfer which clearly indicated a narration of
all the facts including conversion of the
property, firstly, into non-agricultural and
subsequently into agricultural as well as the
fact of the portion of the property purchased
by
the
petitioner-institution
through
instrument of transfer. The orders also do not
indicate any concealment of fact having been
made in the instrument of transfer and
therefore in the considered opinion of this
Court, there was no occasion for the
authorities to have imposed penalty.

13. Considering the aforesaid facts, the
impugned orders 12.10.2012 and 16.03.2015
are set aside to the extent of imposition of
penalty and determination of market rate for
the property as abutting a road. The
authorities
are
directed
to
recalculate
additional stamp duty payable by petitioner
ignoring
the
penalty
clause
and
redetermination of additional stamp duty taking
the property in question to be non-agricultural
but not in the vicinity of a road.

14. Consequently, the writ petition is
partly allowed. The parties to bear their
own costs.

15. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that in pursuance of impugned
orders, additional stamp duty has been
deposited by the petitioner. The same shall
be adjusted by the authorities with regard to
new determination of additional stamp
duty, which is to be made.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 348
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 1007067 of 2012

Smt. Jitendra Devi Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Bajrangi Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Sections 33 & 47-A - Stamp Deficiency -
Instrument transferring the lease hold
rights, not title - However, the deed of
assignment was treated as Sale-deed -
Legality challenged - Nomenclature of
deed, how far relevant - Held, by means
of deed in question, only lease hold rights
have been granted to the petitioner,
particularly in view of the fact that lessor
himself had only lease hold rights and not
title over the property in question -
Nature of a deed is to be considered only
as per substance of the deed and not its
nomenclature. Deed was issued granting
rights over the immoveable property only
for a period of 30 years and therefore the
lessor had reserved rights of reversion to
himself and as such the deed could have
been considered only as lease deed
instead of deed of sale. (Para 12 and 13)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)