Allowed

Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2022/6446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a sale deed executed by a vendee of surplus land without alienation rights was void ab initio. The refusal to refund stamp duty was reversed, and the Assistant Collector's order was quashed, directing authorities to refund the amount.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the order dated 09.06.2022 by the Assistant Collector (Stamp), Ayodhya, is quashed; authorities directed to refund the stamp duty amount within one month.

Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6446 of 2022 Petitioner :- Kanhaiya Lal

¶2

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Srivastava

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel representing the State.

¶6

By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to the order 09.06.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) Ayodhya, whereby the application made by the petitioner for refund of the amount of the stamp purchased by the petitioner for execution of sale deed in favour of one Keshav Ram, has been rejected.

¶7

The case of the petitioner put forth is that khasra plot no.915 situated in Village Konchha, Pargana Paschim Raath, Tehsil Bikapur, District Ayodhya, is the land recorded in the khatauni in category 4-क and further that the said land was declared surplus in the ceiling proceedings drawn under Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, which was allotted to the petitioner on lease, and as such only nontransferable rights have accrued to him.

¶8

It has thus been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the deed executed by the petitioner in favour of Keshav Ram was void-abinitio for the reason that the petitioner did not have any right to alienate the land as the same was allotted to him after it was declared surplus under the ceiling proceedings. In this view, it has been stated that in terms of the provisions

¶9

contained in Section 49 (d)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, he is entitled to refund as the petitioner discovered that the deed executed by him is voidab-initio.

¶10

It has further been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the sale consideration agreed upon between the parties was also not paid to the petitioner who is the vendor and as such in this view of the matter as well, the deed executed on the stamp papers purchased by the petitioner was void-ab-initio .

¶11

When we examine the order passed by the Assistant Collector (Stamp), Ayodhya, we find that he has not dealt with the aforesaid legal issues and has, thus, wrongly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the amount in question.

¶12

Accordingly, we hold that for the reasons recorded above, the deed/ instrument in question is void and the petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the Assistant Collector (Stamp), Ayodhya, is hereby quashed.

¶13

Authorities are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner after deduction, which may be permissible as per Rules, within a period of one month from today.

¶14

Learned State Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the authorities concerned.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.9.2022 Rahul

¶16

Digitally signed by RAHUL TRIPATHI Date: 2022.09.22 10:11:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. 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

Shiv Sant Saxena (in Wria 20412 of 2018) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Shiv Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development, Lko. and 7 Others

Prashant Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. and 6 Others

Sumit Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Mukesh Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others

Ajay Singh Alias Ajay Singh Guddan Vs Union of India Thru.Secy. Deptt. of Petroleum and Natural Gas Central Secrt., New Delhi and Others