Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69764 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15348 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Meera Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Mishra,Narendra Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard Mr. Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is, inter alia, praying for the following relief:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Recovery certificate dated 03.02.2023 and the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 and also the Order dated 30.12.2022 passed by respondent no. 3 respectively." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide registered sale deed dated 8.4.2022, the petitioner has purchased agricultural land and paid the due stamp duty as per the circle rate. Thereafter on the basis of ex parte report dated 31.5.2022, and thereafter Stamp Case No. 57 of 2022 was registered under Section 33/47 A of the Indian Stamp Act in which a notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted reply to the show cause notice specifically stating that the property in question was used as agricultural land at the time of purchase and also annexed the khasra and khatauni in support of her objection however being not satisfied with the same, the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 has been passed by which deficiency of stamp together with penalty and interest has been imposed against which the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed without considering the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has also brought on record the sale deed of the adjacent plots, which were purchased as an agricultural land and paid the stamp duty as agricultural land but the respondent authority has failed to consider the same. He further submits that relevant date is the date of execution of sale deed and on the date of execution of sale deed, the land in question was an agricultural land and the same was used as such. He further submits that no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been made declaring the land in dispute as non- agricultural land at the time of execution of the sale deed. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 7. The records shows that the land in question was purchased as an agricultural land and due stamp duty was paid thereof as per the circle rate. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the khasra and khatauni of the relevant point of time showing that the land in question was an agricultural property at the time of execution of sale deed. The exemplar was also filed before the respondent authority which shows that the adjacent land was agricultural property but no due weightage of the same was given to the petitioner. The record further shows that specific objection was raised by the petitioner that no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act has been made in respect of the land in question at the time of execution of the sale deed, but the same has not been considered by the authorities below. 8. The issue in hand is not res-integra. This Court in Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2023 (5) AWC 4511] has held as under: 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that non- declaration of land as Abadi under section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 is an admitted fact. The contention of the State to the effect that the said non-declaration is not relevant in the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act cannot be accepted for the reason that in exercise of statutory powers under the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable in the State of U.P., Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 have been framed. Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, provide as follows: "Facts to be set forth in an instrument.-In case of an instrument relating to immovable property chargeable with an ad valorem duty, the following particulars shall also be fully and truly stated in the instrument in addition to the market value of the property- (1) In case of land- (a) included in the holding of a tenure-holder, as defined in the law relating to land tenures- (i) the Khasra number and area of each plot forming part of the subject- matter of the instrument; (ii) whether irrigated or unirrigated and if irrigated, the source of irrigation; (iii) if under cultivation whether do-fasali or otherwise; (iv) land revenue or rent whether exempted or not and payable by such tenure-holder; (v) classification of soil, supported in case of instruments exceeding twenty thousand rupees in value, by the certified copies, or extracts from the relevant revenue records issued in accordance with law; (vi) location (whether lies in an urban area, semi-urban area, or countryside); and (vii) minimum value fixed by the Collector of the district." 15. Admittedly, on the date of execution of the sale deed, the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 were applicable. The definition of "land" as contained under section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, reads as follows: (14) "Land"[except in Sections 109, 143 and 144 and Chapter VII] means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, hoticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming; 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. **** 19. The observations/findings recorded in the orders impugned are also contrary to principles of burden of proof particularly, in a case where proceedings arise out of a fiscal statute. Once the State was proceeding to impose deficient stamp duty upon the petitioner, the entire burden lay upon the State to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner made some concealment at the time of getting the sale deed executed in his favour or that within a close proximity of dates, the user of the land in dispute was changed so as to levy additional stamp duty. Nothing to this effect has been brought on record, rather, not only the findings recorded in the orders impugned are contrary to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in the State of U.P. as well as U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, but certainly contrary to the law consistently laid down by this Court. 9. Both the authorities below have failed to consider that no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act has been made in respect of the land in question at the time of execution of the sale deed. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 and also the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by respondent no. 3 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed. 11. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 12. The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner either pursuant to the impugned orders or in pursuance of the direction made by this Court, along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of refund, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad