Ranveer Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. A.D.M. Revenue Lucknow and 4 Others

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 237 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ranveer Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. A.D.M. Revenue Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Kumar Bachhil,Anjani Nath Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶1An application for interim relief filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶2Office to assign a number to the said application.

¶3Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶4With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶5Instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main relief: - "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set-aise the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the Opposite Party no.4 in Case No.SA/229/2014, Computerized Case No.AL20141046993018, in the name of Ranveer Sharma versus State of U.P. and others, under Section 56(1) Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which is annexed as Annexure no.1 with this writ petition and order dated 20.08.2011 passed by Opposite party no.5, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Lucknow in Case No.763/Stamp/2009, State versus Ranveer Sharma, under Section 47-A Stamp Act ."

¶6The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased a piece of land through a registered sale deed on 14.09.2009. It is contended that an ex-parte inspection report was submitted by the Assistant Inspector General, Registration subsequent to the sale deed. On the basis of the said report the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1899') were initiated against the petitioner. Despite the petitioner having put in appearance but not having filed any objection, the case was decided vide order dated 20.08.2011, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal against the said order, which too has been rejected vide the order impugned dated

03.01.2024, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Still being aggrieved, instant writ petition has been filed.

¶7Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha vs State of U.P. and another - 2005 SCC Online All. 2247, the legal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this Court has categorically held that though a report on the basis of which proceedings under the Act, 1899 have been initiated would have relevance for the purpose of initiation of proceedings but subsequent there to, for deciding the case, no reliance can be placed upon the said report and after initiation of the case inspection is to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties concerned to the instrument as provided under Rule 7(3) (c) of the Rules, 1997, which incidentally has not been done and the authority has only placed reliance on the ex-parte report and has proceeded to pass the order impugned which would run foul to the specific judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra). He further contends that this aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2024.

¶8On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned orders passed by the authorities.affidavit. However, he does not dispute the legal position as enunciated by this Court is the case of Ram Khelawan (supra).

¶9Heard learned counsels for the contesting parties and perused the records.

¶10From perusal of records, it emerges that the petitioner had purchased a piece of land through a registered sale deed on

14.09.2009. Subsequent thereto, an inspection was carried out and a report was submitted by the Assistant Inspector General, Registration. Based on the said report, proceedings were registered and initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act, 1899. The petitioner put in appearance in the said proceedings but did not file his objections. The competent authority vide impugned order dated

20.08.2011 required the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty, registration charges, interest and also imposed penalty. Upon an appeal being filled, the said order has been affirmed by the appellate authority with the dismissal of the appeal vide impugned order dated 03.01.2024 and hence the petition.

¶11The sheet-anchor of the case of the petitioner is the judgment of this court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra) wherein this Court has held that an ex-parte inspection report submitted by the authority concerned may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 but for deciding the case no reliance can be placed on the said report and after initiation of the case an inspection has to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule 7(3) (c) of the Rules, 1997. For the sake of convenience, relevant observations in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra) are reproduced below:- "25. It has been found in several cases like the present one that the entire basis of determination of market value for the purpose of stamp duty is ex-parte report of Tehsildar or other officer. Ex-parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of Stamp Act. However, for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report. After initiation of the case inspection is to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule-7(3) (c) of the Rules of 1997. Moreover in the inspection report distance of the property from other residential or commercial properties and road must be shown and wherever possible sketch map must also be annexed alongwith the report so that correct valuation may be ascertained with reasonable certainty."

¶12From perusal of the judgment of this Count in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra) it thus emerges that after the proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act, 1899, an inspection is required to be conducted by the authority concerned under Rule 7 (3)(c) of the Rules, 1997 in order to have some material to hold that the stamp duty as paid by the purchaser of the property is not in accordance with rules or does not conform to the valuation of the property. From perusal of the order impugned dated 20.08.2011 it emerges that the authority concerned has only placed reliance on an ex-parte inspection report submitted by the authority concerned subsequent to the sale deed and no inspection as categorically provided under Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules, 1997 has been made.

¶13Considering the aforesaid as well as the judgment of this Court is the case of Ram Khelawan (supra) it thus emerges that the order impugned does not conform to the provisions of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra). This aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2024.

¶14Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The orders impugned dated 03.01.2024 and

20.08.2011, copies of which are annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition, are quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent no. 5 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after due hearing to all parties concerned.

¶15Let an order in this regard be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 4.3.2024 A. Katiyar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench