Case Law Details
Ramvati Rathore And Another Vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
In the case of Ramvati Rathore and Another vs. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court reviewed a dispute over the assessment of stamp duty on agricultural land in Jhansi. The petitioners had purchased a portion of land, which was claimed to be agricultural, but the authorities imposed higher stamp duty, treating the land as non-agricultural due to its proximity to a National Highway. Despite multiple inspections confirming ongoing agricultural activity, the authorities persisted with their assessment. After several appeals and remands, the petitioners challenged the orders in the High Court. The Court noted that the burden of proof to show the land was non-agricultural was on the authorities, who failed to provide sufficient evidence. Citing the Madras High Court’s ruling that the prosecution must affirmatively prove non-compliance with the Stamp Act, the Court concluded that the impugned orders were unsustainable. Consequently, the orders were quashed, and the authorities were directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioners.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 24.10.2017 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Jhansi in Stamp Case filed under Section 33/47A of Indian Stamp Act and order dated 3 1.01.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Appeal No. 210806000000965 of 2018-019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners purchased a part of the agricultural land, measuring 0.178 hectare situate in Mauja Pali Paharhi, Block-Babia, Pargana and Tehsil-Jhasni, District- Jhansi through a Sale deed executed on 04.12.2010, the said land was a Bhumidhari land of one Madan Kumar, who was recorded along with other co-tenure holders in the revenue record and 1/5th share in the land, consisting of Gata Nos. 818, 812, 811, 810, 816, 814, 807, 809 and 913 total area 4.306 Hectare, out of which, Madan Kumar’s share was 0.86 1 hectare from which he transferred the aforesaid 0.178 hectare land to the petitioners for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He further submits that as some of the part of the plots were on the side of the National Highway, an increased stamp duty @ 10% was required to be paid on sale value of the land, which was duly paid by the petitioners and sale deed was presented before Sub-registrar. Thereafter, Sub-registrar submitted a report on 13.12.2010 to which a notice was issued on 14.02.2011 to which the petitioner submitted his objection on 13.05.2011, however, order dated 14.06.2011 was passed holding the deficiency of stamp duty, penalty as well as interest @ 1.5% per month from the date of execution of sale deed, against which, an appeal was preferred, which was allowed by order dated 14.09.2013 and the matter was remanded. While remanding the matter, the plot numbers in dispute namely 807, 809 & 818 were required to be assessed afresh.
4. He further submits that the plot numbers, as mentioned in the rate list of the Commissioner, were required to be assessed and thereafter, after remand, on 15.10.2012, a notice was issued and on 31.01.2013, a report was submitted by Tehsildar. Thereafter, again an inspection was made on 11.4.2013 and the report of the same was forwarded on 15.04.2013 to the respondent no.3 in favour of the petitioners.
5. He further submits that on 31.07.2014, the Deputy Collector again made an inspection of the land in question and sent his report, specifically stating therein that the land in question is an agricultural land and the same was found to be under cultivation at the time of inspection. Again, a joint spot inspection by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Collector, Jhansi was made who submitted their separate reports on 22.02.20 16 and 25.02.20 16 in favour of the petitioners holding that still over the plots in question, agricultural activities were being undertaken but by the impugned order dated 23.09.20 16, deficiency of stamp duty was held against the petitioners, against which an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by order dated 16.12.2016.
6. Thereafter, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 23.09.2016 and 16.12.2016 before this Hon’ble Court through Writ Petition No.24107 of 2017, which was allowed by order dated 26.05.20 17 and the matter was again remanded. In pursuance thereof, again survey was made on 17.09.2017; wherein in favour of the petitioners, it has been held that there is an agricultural activity over the plot in question, but later plots were taken under construction.
7. He submits that by the first remand, the State did not go in appeal and only three plots were required to be considered, which were said to be disputed, adjacent to the National Highway; rest of the plots were not in dispute therefore, by the impugned order, the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction which is not permissible, against which an appeal has been preferred, the same has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 31.01.2019, which is illegal as the same has been passed without considering the material available on record.
8. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that once while remanding the matter, only three plots were in dispute to which no appeal was preferred, the impugned orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law. He prays for allowing the present writ petition.
9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.
10. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.
11. It is not in dispute that by the order dated 14.09.2013 passed by CCRA in Appeal No. 58 of 2011-12 while remanding, it has been held as under:-
12. Against the aforesaid facts, nothing has been brought on record on behalf of the State to show that this order was modified or set aside by the competent court with regard to dispute of aforesaid three plots. Once this order has become final between the parties, it was not permissible to the State respondents to assess the property as of whole action.
13. On perusal of the spot inspection reports as mentioned above, it is evident that the lands in question were found to be used as an agricultural land and no cogent material has been brought on record by the revenue authority, showing it as non-agricultural lands.
14. If the authorities are making allegation then the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to show that the provision of Section 27 of the Stamp Act has not been complied with.
15. The Madras High Court in the case of Venkataswami Aiya Vs. Unknown in para nos. 9 & 13 has held as under:-
“9. But whatever may be the circumstances under which the prosecution is launched, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to show affirmatively and satisfactorily that the terms of Section 27 have not been complied with. In all criminal cases the onus of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused lies on the prosecution. The difficulty of proving a fact may affect the quantum of evidence demanded in the first instance but does not change the dominant presumption of innocence. It is not also necessary in all these cases for the accused to produce independent evidence. He is entitled to rely upon evidence that has been produced on behalf of the prosecution to urge that such evidence does not establish the guilt: See — “Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutionsз (1935) AC 462 (E) (House of Lords) followed in — ‘Manclni v. Director of Public Prosecutions’, 1942 Mad W N Cri 140 (F). See also — ‘Mahadeo v. Kingc AIR 1936 PC 242 (G).
13. In the instant case the element of intent to defraud has not been satisfactorily proved. First of all, it has not been shown what is the real market) value of the land as contra-distinguished from the under-valuation charged. This must be affirmatively and satisfactorily proved by the prosecution. On the other hand, the burden of it has been thrown upon the scribe, the petitioner before us. The trial Court has stated: “It is in evidence that the accused who is the karnam of the village knows the value of the land in question. Exs. P-24 and P-25 are useful in this respect. (How. no information is vouchsafed). The accused cannot be heard to say that the kamam he is, is ignorant of the value of lands in the village and hence that his intention was not to defraud the Government when he wrote the document in question.” This is merely begging the question. Secondly, the accused as a matter of fact taken upon himself the burden of showing that there was no undervaluation and examined D. W. 8, a village official, and who is his own brother. The trial Court dismissed his evidence in the following unsatisfactory manner: “For example D. W. 8 Balachandra Iyer is the brother of the accused who also is a village official. His evidence is interested. His records also are not clear.” On the other hand, there is a volume of respectable evidence on the side of the karnam that there was no such gross under-valuation as would by itself be proof of intent to defraud: Thirdly, it has not been shown that the karnam derived any advantage from this under-valuation, even assuming that there was_ an under-valuation which has not been affirmatively proved. It is quite true that the deriving of this advantage cannot be proved by direct evidence. But sufficient circumstances should be established to enable us to draw that only inference. There is no such evidence here.”
16. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the impugned orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed.
17. The writ petition is allowed, accordingly.
18. Any amount deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be refunded to them within a month from today.
Author Bio
