Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36597 of 2022 Petitioner :- Vikas Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nikhil Kumar,Prashant Kanha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioners have made the following prayer:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.09.2022 passed by respondent no.2 under Section 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in Case No. R.E.C./1852/2017/Kanpur Nagar; Computerized Case No. AL20170341001852 (Vikash Singh Vs. State of U.P.), Order dated 04.08.2017 passed by respondent no.2 in Stamp Appeal No. 183 of 2016 (Vikash Singh V. State of U.P.) and order dated 26.05.2016 passed by respondent no.3 in Case No. 27/2015-16D-20150341001448, under Section 47A (3) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (State Vs. Vikash Singh and another) (Annexure Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to this writ petition); (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to given effect of the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by respondent no.2 under Section 56 (1) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in Case No. R.E.C./1852/2017/Kanpur Nagar; Computerized Case No. AL20170341001852 (Vikash Singh Vs. State of U.P.), Order dated 04.08.2017 passed by respondent no.2 in Stamp Appeal No.183 of 2016 (Vikash Singh V. State of U.P.) and order dated 26.05.2016 passed by respondent no.3 in Case No. 27/2015-16D-20150341001448, under Section 47A (3) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (State Vs. Vikash Singh and another)" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an agricultural land was purchased through registered sale deed dated 05.05.2014 and since the land in question was situated within the radius of 200 meters of wherein residential activities were going on and, 50% additional stamp duty was paid, but after execution of sale deed, an spot inspection was made and a report was submitted, on the basis of which, the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioners and a notice was issued to them to which the petitioners submitted their objection/reply, but being not satisfied with the same, an impugned order was passed holding the deficiency of stamp duty along with interest @ 1.5 per cent as well as penalty, against which, an appeal was preferred, which was dismissed without considering the material available on record. 4. He further submits that the land in question was within the radius of 200 meters where the residential activities were going on and therefore, 50% additional stamp duty was paid, however, at the time of purchase of the land in question, the land in question was an agricultural land and therefore, it was put for use as an agricultural land. 5. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the Khasra, showing the agricultural crops grown over the land in question, but no weightage has been given to the same. He further submits that the petitioner has specifically pleaded that the proceedings under Section 143 of UPZA & LR Act were never initiated and therefore, until and unless the declaration under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act are not made, the land cannot be treated as an abadi land, but no weightage has been given to the same. 6. He further submits that the similar grounds have also been raised in the instant writ petition, which have not specifically been denied in the counter affidavit. 7. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court passed in the cases of Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ- C No.19644 of 2016), Ajay Bahadur Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ-C No.39355 of 2015), Badri Vishal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration and others; 2023 (158) RD 198, Ajay Agarwal Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow and others; 2023 (158) RD 365 and Deo Prakash Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2021 (9) ADJ 451. 8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders. 9. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 10. It is not in dispute that the the petitioner has purchased the agricultural land after paying the 50% additional stamp duty in view of the residential activities being undertaken within the radius of 200 meters. 11. The record shows that the land in question has not been declared as an abadi land under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act. 12. This Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) in para nos. 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. 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." 13. Once the land has not been declared as an abadi land under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act and the said fact being not recorded in the impugned orders, the same cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 14. In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed. 15. 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 three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 16. Any amount deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be subject to the outcome to the fresh order to be passed by the authority concerned. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad