Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80307 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45673 of 2017 Petitioner :- Nand Kishore Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Jayant Prakash Singh,Vinit Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Jayant Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Siddharth Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and the order dated 06.04.2025 passed by the Collector, District- Amroha. 3. Shri Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that the agricultural land was purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 19.05.2014 after paying the due stamp duty as per the prevailing circle rate at the relevant time, but thereafter, on the basis of ex-parte reports, proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and a notice was issued to him to which a specific objection was filed by the petitioner, but being not satisfied with the said reply, the impugned order dated 06.04.2015 was passed, holding the deficiency of stamp duty as well as imposed the penalty along with interest @ 1.5% per month. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which has been rejected without considering the material available on record. 4. He further submits that the sale deed of the land in question itself shows that the land in question has been shown to be an agricultural land, which was also surrounded by the agricultural land. He further submits that the report which was prepared also shows that the land in question was surrounded and adjacent to the agricultural land, however, a few scattered residential houses were found in the vicinity of the land in question. Hence the present writ petition. 5. He further submit that the relevant khasra was filed before the authorities, which shows that three crops were grown on the land in question. He further submits even in the another survey being conducted and a report being prepared, also indicates that the land was surrounded by the agricultural land, however, a few scattered house were found in the vicinity of the land in question. 6. He further submits that the land in question cannot be treated as an abadi land in absence of any declaration being made under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 7. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon Writ- C No. 19644 of 2016 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) and submits that the authorities were not justified for initiating the proceedings of deficiency of stamp duty in absence of any such declaration of the land in question as an abadi land as per Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. 8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders and submits that the land in question has rightly been treated as an abadi land in view of the rate list issued for V Code 1126. 9. Confronted with the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, Senior Counsel submits that in the rate list prevailing at the time of the execution of the sale deed in question, which is annexed as Annexure No.10 at page No.82, V Code is mentioned as 1112 and not 1126. 10. Senior Counsel further submits that specific pleading has been raised in para no.18 of the instant writ petition, which has not specifically been denied in para no.17 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 11. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 12. Admittedly, at the time of execution of sale deed, the land in question was shown to be an agricultural land and the map attached therewith also shows that the land in question is surrounded by agricultural land, but pursuant to ex-parte reports being prepared, the aforesaid proceedings were initiated against the petitioner showing the land in question adjacent to and surrounded by the abadi land by overlooking the second survey report and the impugned order was passed holding the land in question as an abadi land. 13. 13. Further, the appellate court has recorded a finding that in absence of any declaration being made under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the land in question can be treated as an abadi land, having conversion of the land use. 14. This Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) in para no. 16 & 20 has held as under:- "16. In view of the definition of land contained in the law relating to land tenures, i.e. U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, the fact that the land was not declared as Abadi under section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 as explained under section 3(14) of the said Act, in itself becomes a relevant factor for determining the nature of land that was subject matter of instrument. This Court in various authorities has held that when the land is purchased for agricultural purposes and declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act, 1950 has not been made and merely because the land is situated in close vicinity of the non-agricultural land, the same would not loose its character as the agricultural land for the purposes of levy of stamp duty. Reference can be made to few authorities of this Court in the case of Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad and another, reported in 2000 (3) AWC 2587; Smt. Sushila Verma vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2006 (2) AWC 1492 and Sudama vs Chief Controlling Authority and others, reported in 2013 (4) AWC 3571. xxx 20. Insofar as the imposing four times penalty is concerned, it is well settled that unless "mens rea" is established on the part of the purchaser, no penalty can be imposed, even if the provision of penalty is a creation of statute. Regarding imposition of penalty, reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Asha Kapoor vs Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad and others, reported in 2008 (72) ALR 125, where this Court has held that penalty can be imposed if there is an attempt to evade the stamp duty and penalty presupposes culpability and an intention to conceal or to play fraud with the authorities. I do not find any finding on record, whereunder any opinion has been formed by the respondent-Authorities that the petitioner defrauded the Government having mens rea at the time of getting the sale deed executed. Even the annexures to the writ petition disclosing the nature of land have not been disputed by the State in the counter affidavit. I also find that the sale deed in question conforms to the statutory requirements of disclosure of necessary particulars as per rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules of 1997. Therefore, imposition of penalty is also contrary to law of the land." 15. Further, the petitioner has annexed the copy of the rate list as Annexure No.10, which shows that the V Code is mentioned as 1112; whereby land has been treated as an agricultural land, but in the reports, the same has been treated as an abadi land on the basis of V Code mentioned as 1126. The said fact has been pleaded in para no.18 of the instant writ petition, which has not specifically been disputed by the state. 16. In view of the above facts as stated, the matter requires re- consideration. 17. In the light of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned for deciding afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing all the stakeholder, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 19. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh order to be passed by the authority concerned. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad