Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32200 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10125 of 2023 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harshit Gupta,Ramanand Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 as well as order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Saharanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased an agricultural land by way of sale deed dated 29.04.2021 after paying stamp duty higher than the prescribed circle rate of the area. Thereafter, on the basis of a spot inspection report dated 04.06.2021, which was carried out after two months from the date of execution of the sale deed, proceedings under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and a notice was issued to which the petitioner filed his objection, specifically stating therein that the land in question is an agricultural land, showing the Khasra of that area wherein the standing crop were shown, however, the Collector, Saharanpur, ignoring the said objection, passed an order dated 18.05.2022 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 22.12.2022. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. He further submits that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner as an agricultural land, but thereafter, on the basis of an ex-parte report, proceeding of deficiency of stamp duty were initiated against the petitioner, treating the land in question as non-agricultural land and pursuant to the notice issued thereto, reply was submitted raising specific grounds therein, but no weightage has been given to the same and even in the appeal, the ground was taken that the land has not been declared as an abadi land under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act, however, no weightage has been given by the appellate authority either. In the present writ petition, the said ground has been taken, which has not specifically been denied by the State. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders. 6. Upon hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 7. The records shows that once in spite of specific ground being raised up to the appellate authority whereto no weightage has been given to the same and also before this Court, no specific denial has been made on behalf of the State to the said ground as raised in the instant writ petition i.e. the land in question has not been declared as an abadi land, the land in question cannot be treated as a non- agricultural land and therefore, said proceedings are bad in the eyes of law. 8. This Court in Writ- C No. 19644 of 2016 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) 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. xxxxx 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." 9. In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgment the matter requires re-consideration. 10. Accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed. 11. 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. 12. 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 :- 6.3.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad