Allowed

Inamul Haq v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2021A482/31982/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash an order attaching the applicant's property. The order was set aside because the attachment was based on an unregistered agreement to sale, violating the Registration and Stamp Acts.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 19.9.2008 attaching the property was set aside and the application was allowed.

Inamul Haq Vs State of U.P.and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31982 of 2008

¶3

Applicant :- Inamul Haq Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Meraj Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicant, namely, Inamul Haq with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 19.9.2008 passed by Upper City Magistrate II Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 5 of 2008 ( Mohd. Iqbal vs. Inamul Haq and others) wherein the learned Magistrate has passed a speaking order attaching the said property in view of the report of the police station Rail Bazar, Kanpur Nagar.

¶6

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that order of learned Magistrate is per se illegal as there is no "agreement to sale" of the property and the affidavit of Mohd. Iqbal filed as Annexure No. 2, categorically states that the agreement to sale has been executed on a notarial stamp deed which has not been registered.

¶7

Learned counsel has argued that the Registration Act was amended in the year 1976 wherein Section 17 of the said Act categorically provides that all the instruments regarding immovable property shall be registered under the Registration Act hence the alleged photocopy of the notarial agreement to sale is illegal and the said order could not have been passed in lieu of that notarial agreement to sale dated 15.9.2007. The O.P. No. 2 has got present proceedings instituted to illegally grab the land of the applicant.

¶8

The aforesaid arguments carry force and stand fortified by the fact that the stamp act was also amended in the year 1991 wherein Article 5 provides that the half of the stamp duty has to be deposited at the time of agreement if possession is not taken and if the possession is given to the buyer then full stamp duty has to be paid. Thus, the said proceedings initiated on an unregistered instrument, inadmissible under law cannot be allowed to continue.

¶9

The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is, ipso facto , illegal and without jurisdiction. The order dated

¶10

19.9.2008 passed by Upper City Magistrate II Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 5 of 2008 ( Mohd. Iqbal vs. Inamul Haq and others) is, hereby, set aside.

¶11

The application stands allowed.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.12.2021 SY

Inamul Haq v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inamul Haq v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Ashraf and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Taufiq and Others Vs State of U.P.

Shailendra Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ghunna Halwai @ Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushkar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another