Disposed

Herosons Constructions Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jun 2021WRIC/5844/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order by the revision authority that condoned delay in filing a revision under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, without issuing notice to the petitioner. The court held the writ petition is open to challenge if objections are not taken before the revision authority.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition disposed off pending objection to delay condonation before revision authority.

Herosons Constructions Private… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5844 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Herosons Constructions Private Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

Petitioner has purchased property being plot no. 634 of 4/5, having total area of 0.4220 hectare situated at Mauja Mahua Kheda Tehsil and District Agra, by sale deed dated 16.01.2007.

¶8

It appears that a proceeding under Section 47-A (3) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1899') was initiated against the petitioner which was registered as Case No.3234/08-09 before Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'A.D.M.'). The said proceeding under Section 47-A (3) of the Act, 1899 culminated into discharge of notice by the A.D.M. by order dated 04.05.2009.

¶9

The respondents-state preferred a revision under Section 56(1) of the Act, 1899 against the order of respondent no. 2-The Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, Agra Division, Agra dated 16.03.2020 which was registered as Revision No.C-202001000000467/2020. The revision court passed the order dated 16.03.2020 without issuing notice to the petitioner and condoned the delay in filing the revision and admitted the revision.

¶10

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that revision is highly time barred as the same has been preferred after ten years from the date of passing of order dated 04.05.2009 and revision court without issuing any notice on application to condone the delay to the petitioner condoned the delay and admitted

¶11

¶12

the revision. Thus, order is per se illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶14

The order impugned in the writ petition reads as under:-

¶15

vkns'k

¶16

izLrqr fuxjkuh] fuxjkuhdrkZ m0iz0 jkT; o vU; }kjk Hkkjrh; LVkEi vf/kfu;e 1899] dh धारा 56 (1) izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 5 E;kn vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr nkf[ky dh x;hA fuxjkuh dh xzkg~;rk ds fcUnq ij jkT; ljdkj ds vf/koDrk dks lquk x;kA fuxjkuh vk/kkj] voj U;k;ky; dk iz'uxr vkns'k ,ao vU; vfHkys[kksa dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA izLrqr fuxjkuh U;k;ky; vij ftykf/kdkjh (िव०/रा०) vkxjk }kjk LVkEiokn la[;k 3234@2008&09 fnukad 04-05-2009 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds fo:)] LVki vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 56 (1) esa izkFkZuk i= /kkjk&5 E;kn vf/kfu;e ds vUrXkZr izLrqr dh x;h gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ dh fuxjkuh esa of.kZr rF;ksa ij lE;d ijh{kk.kksijkUr U;k;fgr esa jkT; ljdkj dh fuxjkuh xq.knks"k ij lquokbZ ds fy, xzg.k dh tkrh gSA voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ryc djus gsrq ekax i= izsf"kr fd;k tk;s rFkk f}rh; i{k dks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;sA i=koyh izrh{kk voj U;k;ky; gsrq fnuakd 15-06-2020 dks is'k gksA fnukad% 16-03-2020

¶17

A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that delay in filing the revision has been condoned and revision has been admitted. If petitioner had not been given notice on delay condonation application and was not afforded any opportunity of hearing, it is open to the

¶18

¶19

petitioner to take objection against the order condoning the delay in filing the revision before the revision authority, and in case any such objection is taken by the petitioner challenging the condonation of delay by the revision authority, revision authority shall decide the same in accordance with law.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed off. Order Date :- 15.6.2021 Vikram

Herosons Constructions Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Herosons Constructions Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Indra Builders Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santushti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kps Propbuild Private Pimited Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kps Propbuild Private Pimited Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chakresh Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Deepa Sharma and Another Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others