Allowed

Smt. Sunita v. State of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023/3835/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an ex-parte impugned order assessing stamp duty and registration fee deficiency. The court held the order violated natural justice as petitioner's counsel could not appear during the pandemic and remanded for a fresh order after a proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 15.04.2021 and 23.02.2022 quashed; matter remanded for a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Smt. Sunita Vs State of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:66175

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3835 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Sunita Respondent :- State Of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the Collector, Bahraich assessing the deficiency of stamp duty paid by the petitioner at Rs.96,980/- and the registration fees at Rs.16,640/-, which was directed to be paid along-with penalty of Rs.10,000/- along with interest @1.5% per month as well as the order dated 23.02.2022 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed.

¶8

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased a property by virtue of a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of an agricultural land in the year 2017. After execution of the sale deed, on the basis of ex-parte inspection carried out on 22.12.2017, proceedings were initiated. Although the petitioner had engaged an advocate, however, as the Advocate could not appear on the date fixed, an order came to be passed on 15.04.2021 assessing the deficiency with direction to pay the amounts as quantified in the order. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said order. In the revision, it was specifically prayed that on 15.04.2021, the country was in the grip of Covid 19 pandemic and thus, in any case, no appearance could be made. He had further pleaded that reference of many dates being fixed was illusoring inasmuch as in none of the dates, signature of the presiding officer were present. The revisional court was not impressed with the said arguments and dismissed the revision solely on the basis of the ex-parte inspection report.

¶9

Considering the fact that the order was passed by the Collector when the country was facing Covid 19 situation on 15.04.2021 and it was very natural that the Advocate could not appear to argue the matter. The order is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice, as such, on that ground alone, the order dated 15.04.2021 as well as the revisional order,

¶10

which has not considered this aspect while dismissing the revision through its order dated 23.02.2022 are quashed. The matter is remanded to the Collector to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after providing a copy of the report proposed to be relied upon against the petitioner.

¶11

The writ petition is allowed in terms of the said order.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.10.2023 VNP/-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sunita v. State of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita v. State of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Poonam Singh Vs First Additional District Judge Gonda and Another

Smt. Anita Srivastava and Another Vs Learned Court of District Judge Distt. Court Lucknow and Anr.

Ram Janki Virajman Mandir Thru Its Servarkar Vs Nagar Palika Parishad Nawabganj Gonda Thru Adhyaksh and Anr.

Sushil Kumar Nigam and Others Vs District Judge Barabanki and Another

M/S Metal Gems Mumbai Comp.Petition 1/2004 Allahabad Vs M/S Usha India Ltd.

M/S Sahib Furniture Thru Proprietor Kuldeep Kaur Vs State of U.P.Thru Secy.Institutional Finance Lko and Ors.