1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri J.N.Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel for respondents-State.
2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22.3.2021 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal under Section 56(1-A) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter called as "Act, 1899") and order dated 25.10.2018 passed by respondent No.3 in Case No.740 of 2015 in proceedings under Section 47-A of Act, 1899.
3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are that petitioner had purchased the agricultural land of Khasra No.637 measuring about 0.105 Hectare situated at Mauza Sunrakh Bangar, Tehsil and District Mathura vide registered sale deed dated 08.05.2013. A stamp duty of Rs.78,200/- was paid according to the circle rate. The proceedings under the Act, 1899 was initiated at the behest of Additional Commissioner Stamp, Mathura on 25.7.2015 and notice under Section 47-A of Act, 1899 was issued. An objection was submitted by the petitioner denying any deficiency in stamp duty and it was specifically stated that Khasra Nos.637 and 604, whose original tenure holder was Smt. Sharda Devi Motiwala and Smt. Manju Vani Devi and one Ruchi Agrawal. A declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as "Act, 1950") was made by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mathura on 16.7.2005. It was in the year 2009 that on the application moved in respect of these two khasra numbers that on the report of Tehsildar dated 07.09.2009, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mathura proceeded to declare the said land as ''agricultural' under Section 144 of the Act, 1950. It is further averred that once the land was declared as ''agricultural', the petitioner had purchased the same through registered sale deed on 08.05.2013 and had paid stamp duty as per the circle rate. The respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner Stamp Mathura, after considering the objection filed by petitioner, vide detailed order dated 25.10.2018, held that there was deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.3,52,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- and further directed that interest at the rate of 1.5% per month will be levied till the date of payment of balance amount of stamp duty along with penalty from the date of execution of the document.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal under Section 56(1-A) of Act, 1899 was preferred before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Deputy Commissioner Stamp Agra. The Appellate Authority found no substance in the appeal of the petitioner and after recording a finding, dismissed the same upholding the order passed by respondent No.3.
5. Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the proceedings before respondent No.2 and submitted that Section 56(1-A) of the Act, 1899 envisages that the appeal has to be decided by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and not by the Deputy Commissioner and thus the appellate order dated 22.3.2021 was patently illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Neetu Agarwal and another vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others, Writ Petition No.6600 (MS) of 2009 decided on 17.12.2009 by the Lucknow Bench of this Court as well as decision in Writ-C No.33694 of 2013 (Yogesh Kumar and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) decided on 14.6.2013.
6. The second limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the earlier declaration made under Section 143 of Act, 1950 in the year 2005 was recalled and the land was declared as ''agricultural' under Section 144 of Act, 1950 in the year 2009 and the petitioner having purchased the said land in the year 2013 was not liable to pay stamp duty on the basis of the declaration made under Section 143 of Act, 1950.
7. Apart from these two submissions, no other point has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Replying to the argument, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that preliminary objection raised by the petitioner's counsel has no force in view of Section 76-A of Act, 1899 which is in regard to delegation of powers. Section 76-A of Act, 1899 is extracted here as under :
"76-a. Delegation of certain powers.- The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, delegate,-
(a) all or any of the powers conferred on it by Sections 2(9), 33(3), 70(10, 74 and 78 to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, and
(b) all or any of the powers conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by Sections 45(1)(2), 56(1) and 70(2) to such subordinate revenue authority as may be specified in the notification."
9. He then placed before the Court the Indian Stamp (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2015 which received the assent of the President of India on 24th January, 2016 and published in the U.P. Gazette on 4th February, 2016, whereby in Sub-Clause (b) of Section 76-A figure "56(1)"has been substituted by "56(1)(1-A)". Relevant amending Act of 2015 is extracted here as under :
"2. Amendment of Section 76-A to Act No.II of 1899.- In Section 76-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, in clause (b) for the figures "56(1)" the figures and letter "56(1)(1-A)" shall be substituted."
10. He next placed notification dated 24.5.2017 issued by the State Government in exercise of power under Clause (b) of Section 76-A of the Act, 1899 whereby powers conferred on Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sub section (1-A) of Section 56 has been delegated to subordinate revenue authorities and matter up to Rupees Ten lakh was cognizable by Additional Divisional Commissioner /Deputy Commissioner Stamp of Division/circle concerned. Relevant notification issued by the State Government on 24.5.2017 is extracted hereas under :
"In exercise of the power under clause (b) of Section 76-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act 2 of 1899) read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act 10 of 1897) and in supersession of Notification No. K.N.5-3614/11-2008-500(5)91T.C., dated December 8, 2008 and no.24/2016/889/94-SR-2-2016-500(5)-91 T.C., dated September 16, 2016, the Governor is pleased to delegate the powers conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sub-section (1-A) of Section 56 (except the control over the powers exercisable by the Collector under Chapter V) of the said Act of 1899 to the subordinate revenue authorities mentioned in Column-I of the Schedule below in respect of disputes of stamp duty involving the amount shown against them in Column-2 with respect to their jurisdiction. Provided that the Revenue Authorities mentioned in Column-1 shall not entertain cases of disputes of stamp duty below their respective pecuniary jurisdiction as mentioned in Column-2 of the said Schedule.
SCHEDULE Column-1 Column-2 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Value of stamp duty involved in the dispute Member/Member Judicial, Board of Revenue Exceeding Rupees Twenty five lakh Divisional Commissioner Up to Rupees Twenty five lakh Additional Divisional Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner Stamp of Division/circle concerned Up to Rupees Ten lakh
11. Sri Goyal then contended that reliance placed by petitioner's counsel upon the decision of Lucknow Bench of this Court in case of Neetu Agarwal and another (supra) and Yogesh Kumar and 3 others (supra) was prior to Uttar Pradesh Amendment made in the Act, 1899 and post amendment, power of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has been delegated to the various authorities, as given in the notification dated 24.5.2017. He then placed before the court a decision of this Court in case of Ajay Kumar Srivastava vs. Commissioner, Allahabad Division and others passed in Writ-C No.42865 of 2011 decided on 9.5.2013 wherein coordinate Bench of this Court had framed point of determination as to whether Commissioner of the Division has authority to decide an appeal filed under Section 56(1-A) of the Act and the appellate power which is exercisable by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is not delegable. The Court found that the power of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority can be delegated to the subordinate Revenue Authority in view of Section 76-A and held as under :
"(3) The Commissioner of the Division has no authority to decide the appeal filed under Section 56(1-A) of the Act and the appellate power which is exercisable by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is not delegable.
....
Point No.3 The order passed by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Act is both revisable and appealable under Section 56 of the Act. The revision lies under Section 56(1) of the Act whereas appeal is provided under Section 56(1-A) of the Act. The power under both the provisions is different.
Petitioner has filed revision and not appeal which means that he invoked the jurisdiction under Section 56(1) of the Act.
The powers of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority which may be delegated to the subordinate revenue authorities have been specified in Section 76-A of the Act. It provides that the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette may delegate all or any of the powers conferred on the Chief Controlling Authority by certain Sections of the Act including one exercisable under Section 56(1) of the Act to subordinate revenue authorities as may be specified. The said power has been delegated by notification dated 17.10.2002 (Annexure - 4 to the writ petition). Therefore, the argument that the power is not delegable is misconceived. The power to decide revision can be delegated as has rightly been delegated to the Commissioner by the aforesaid notification."
12. Coming to the second point, Sri Goyal submitted that one Kapil Deo Upadhyay had reported the matter to the Lokayukta in regard to the land, which were declared under Section 143 as non agricultural land and subsequent declaration being made under Section 144 of Act, 1950 and thereafter sale deeds were being executed to escape stamp duty on which, after inquiry, many matters have come into light where such sale deeds had been executed so as to escape stamp duty. The said complaint was made in respect of the land in which declaration under Section 144 of Act, 1950 was made between the years 2007-08 to 2013-14 and this was not an isolated case where the Stamp Authorities had proceeded to hold deficiency of stamp duty.
13. Having heard counsel for the parties and from perusal of record I find that the power of delegation vest under Section 76-A of the Act, 1899 and any power, which is conferred on Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 45(1)(2), 56(1) and 70(2) can be delegated to such subordinate revenue authorities, as may be specified in the notification.
14. By the Uttar Pradesh Amendment made in Section 76-A in the year 2015 in Clause (b) of Section 76-A, figure "56(1)" was substituted by figures and letter "56(1)(1-A)". The presidential assent to the said amendment was received on 24.01.2016 pursuant to which a notification was issued under Clause (b) of Section 76-A, delegating power of entertaining the appeal under Section 56(1-A) to the subordinate revenue authorities on 24.5.2017. The Schedule to the said notification provided in Column-1 authorities and in Column 2 the valuation, for which the authorities had jurisdiction to entertain the matters.
15. As the present case was for deficiency of Rs.3,52,000/-, the appeal, which was filed by the petitioner before Deputy Commissioner Stamps Agra was maintainable in view of U.P. Amendment as well as Section 76-A of the Act, 1899. The argument of learned counsel that only the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 56(1-A) falls flat in view of Section 76-A and the subsequent amendment of 2015.
16. The present proceedings was started in the year 2015 and the appeal was filed in the year 2018 thus respondent No.2 had jurisdiction to decide the same. This Court in Ajay Kumar Srivastavav (supra) had already held that the power of delegation was there in view of Section 76-A of the Act, 1899 and reliance placed upon decision of Neetu Agarwal and another (supra) cannot be accepted as the same was given in the year 2009 and U.P. Amendment came in the year 2015 and the notification was issued by the Statement Government on 24.5.2017, well before the appeal was filed by petitioner before respondent No.2.
17. Now coming to the second argument raised by learned counsel that petitioner has purchased the land in question after declaration under Section 144 of Act, 1950 and thus was not entitled for payment of stamp duty on the basis of report that the land in question was a ''non agricultural' land. Here it would be necessary to refer to the action initiated on complaint made to Lokayukt in respect of evasion of stamp duty in District Mathura from the year 2007-08 to 2013-14 wherein it was found that in number of cases, after getting declaration under Section 143 of the Act, 1950, the land was being transferred through sale, was again converted as an agricultural land and declaration is sought under Section 144 of Act, 1950. No plausible explanation has been accorded by the counsel as to what was the need in the year 2009 to have the land converted back as an agricultural land when once the declaration under Section 143 had already been made on 16.7.2005. From the perusal of the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mathura dated 16.7.2005 it is clear that on the application of the original land holders, it was found that the land in question was not being used for agricultural purpose and on the basis of the report being received from the office of Tehsildar after inquiry that the declaration was made by the concerned officer. The subsequent order made under Section 144 of Act, 1950 does not record any ground for making such declaration once it was found to be land not being used for agricultural purpose.
18. As the learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out that this is not a solitary case and on an inquiry by the Lokayukt, it was found that between 2007 to 2014 there were number of cases where such declaration was made under Section 144 of Act, 1950 for the purpose of escaping the stamp duty, I find that the District Revenue Authorities rightly proceeded to hold deficiency of stamp duty on the basis of the fact that once the declaration was made in the year 2005 under Section 143 of Act, 1950, no occasion arise for getting the land again converted as an agricultural land just for the purpose of sale deed and evading the stamp duty.
19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the orders impugned, I find that no interference is required in the orders passed by respondents No.2 and 3.
20. Writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- .13.08.2021 Kushal