Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22628 (ALL)

SANJEEV SURANA AND ANOTHER v. CHIEF CONTRILLING REVENUE AUTHORITY/COMMISSIONER,AGRA DIVISION AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/12943/2020 · 2025-05-01

Piyush Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69536 Reserved On:30.04.2025 Delivered On:02.05.2025 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12943 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sanjeev Surana And Another Respondent :- Chief Contrilling Revenue Authority/Commissioner,Agra Division And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar,Himanshu Pandey,Utkarsh Birla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL,J. 1. Heard Shri Utkarsh Birla, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.03.2020 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Agra as well as the impugned order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the Assistant Inspector General (Stamp), Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide sale deed dated 06.04.2016, the petitioners purchased part of plot no. 108 measuring 0.8660 hectare, which is an agricultural land. He further submits that on the basis of the audit objection raised by the Assistant Registrar (III), Agra, proceedings under section 47- A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioners and a show cause notice was issued, to which the petitioners filed objection. Being dissatisfied with the petitioners' objection, vide impugned order dated 21.08.2019, deficiency of stamp duty, together with interest and penalty was imposed upon the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.03.2020. 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the land in question has neither been declared as abadi under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, nor the exemplar of a small portion of the land can be used against the petitioners for determining the stamp duty as the petitioner has purchased the land measuring 0.8660 hectare. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ C no. 19644/2016 decided on 13.04.2023]. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 7. Admittedly, at the time of execution of the sale deed, the petitioners shown the land in question to be agricultural land. It is admitted that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of audit objection against the petitioner. The authorities have treated the land as non-agricultural on the ground that part of the same plot no. 108 measuring 0.345 hectare has been declared as abadi and on the said premise, the petitioners' land has also been treated as abadi, while the same was not declared as abadi under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. 8. This Court in Raj Kumar (supra) has held that for determination of large piece of land, exemplar of a very small portion of land cannot be used. Moreover, the land in question has not been declared as abadi under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. Therefore, no proceedings can be initiated under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in Raj Kumar (supra). 9. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, as also the law laid down by this Court in the case cited above, the 3 impugned order dated 20.03.2020 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Agra as well as the impugned order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the Assistant Inspector General (Stamp), Agra cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed. 10. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 11. The authority concerned is directed to refund any excess amount deposited by the petitioners along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :-02/05/2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad