Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Beena Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 31156 of 2001 [2005] RD-AH 4447 (19 October 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).




Smt. Beena Singh


State of U.P. and others.



By means of this writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders-dated 19.3.1996 and 14.5.2001 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Varanasi.

The facts arising out of the present writ petition is that the petitioner purchased plot no.720-measuring 21 dismal through a sale deed from one Kanhaiya Lal on 26.7.1994. The petitioner submits that the said land is agricultural land and is within the jurisdiction of Avas Vikas and is covered within the area prescribed for agricultural land. It has further been stated that such land, which comes in the jurisdiction of the Avas Vikas and which is above 20 dismal shall be subject to stamp duty on the basis of the agricultural land. The land, which has been purchased by the petitioner, is an agricultural land. The petitioner has paid stamp duty on 30,000/-on the basis of the agricultural land due to bonafide mistake while the stamp duty should have been paid three fold of agricultural rate because the value of such land is fixed thrice fold of agricultural rate. Thus the value of the purchased property is Rs.69,300/- on which the stamp duty should have been paid by the petitioner. A report by the Sub-Registrar was submitted on 8.8.1994 and on the basis of the aforesaid report; the Sub-Registrar has submitted a report of the Addl. District Magistrate and a proceeding under Stamp Act was initiated on the basis of the report submitted by the Tehsildar dated 13.2.1996. The petitioner submits that according to the report dated 13.2.1996 as the land is an agricultural land, it shall be subject to the stamp duty on the basis of the agricultural land and the petitioner is ready to pay the stamp duty on the rest amount of Rs.39,300/-. The Addl. District Magistrate had passed an order-dated 19.3.1996 holding that it appears impossible that the said land would be cultivated as agricultural land by the petitioner. On 24.5.1996 an order was passed directing the petitioner to pay the difference of the stamp duty and a penalty to that effect was also imposed and the total amount including penalty comes to Rs.70,900/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed a revision before the revisional authority. The revisional authority has also considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and has waived the penalty which was imposed by the authority concerned and has directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount, which was directed by the Addl. District Magistrate.

The submission of the petitioner is that according to the report submitted by the Tehsildar and according to the circle rate fixed by the authority themselves, as nature of the land was agriculture and that was being purchased for the agriculture purpose, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the stamp duty which has been directed by the authority to pay. The petitoner has placed reliance upon Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit and has submitted that according to the norms regarding the payment of stamp duty if it is calculated according to the criteria, which has been fixed by the Addl. District Magistrate (Finance) dated 6.1.1994, the petitioner is only liable to pay the stamp duty on Rs.39,000/- and according to that the petitioner is ready to pay the same. It has further been stated that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.4000/- before filing the writ petition and Rs.9000/- on the basis of the directions issued by this Court on 1.10.2002, therefore, the petitoner is ready to pay the balance amount on Rs.39000/-.

Notices were issued and a counter affidavit was filed in paras 5 and 6 of which it has clearly been stated that the said land is within the limit of Avas Vikas and the intention of the purchaser is also criteria for judging the potential value of the said land which can very well be gathered from recital of the documents. The purpose of the purchase of the aforesaid land is not agriculture and the circle rate prepared by the District Magistrate under the rules of the Stamp Act has been fixed. The area, which has been purchased by the petitioner, is 20 dismal. It necessarily comes within the definition of the residential land and such a small area cannot be said to be of any use for the purpose of agriculture.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel and have also perused the record. A clear finding has been recorded by the authorities below that the said land is 300 meters from the main road and it is only for the purpose of residence and the same has not been purchased for agricultural purpose. The petitioner has deliberately only to save the stamp duty has said that the said land is being purchased for the agriculture purpose. The revisional authority has also considered the penalty which has been imposed and by order dated 14.5.2001 waived the same and has directed that the amount which has been fixed by the Assistant Collector (Finance), Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the petitoner is liable to pay the same.

The petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (46) A.L.R. Page 574 Smt. Vanti Devi & Another Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority /Bard of Revenue U.P. and others. The facts of this case are not applicable to the present case. In the aforesaid case the order was passed without affording any opportunity and the report of Tehsildar was ignored. In view of the aforesaid fact the Hon'ble Single Judge has quashed the order but in the present case it is not the case of the petitioner that the authorities below have not given any opportunity to the petitioner and the report of the Tehsildar has been taken into consideration and on that basis the competent authority has passed an order.

In view of the aforesaid facts the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any stands vacated.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.