Allowed

Oriole Infratech LLP v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2023WRIC/3409/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges an ex-parte order assessing stamp duty and a subsequent dismissal of a revision. The High Court set aside both orders due to violations of notice rules (Rule 7 and 9 of 1997 Rules), specifically non-compliant time frames and improper service on the wife. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 24.01.2020 and 09.01.2023 set aside; matter remanded to Collector for fresh hearing after proper notice.

Oriole Infratech LLP Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3409 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Oriole Infratech Llp Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Goswami Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the District Magistrate/ Collector (Stamp), Agra in Stamp Case No.3028 of 2017 whereby by means of an ex-parte order, the deficiency of stamp duty has been assessed against the petitioner as well as the order dated 09.01.2023 whereby the revisional authority has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner.

¶7

The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an LLP firm and has been registered at Agra. It is stated that the petitioner, LLP has purchased a part of the land situate at Agra from the seller by means of a registered sale deed executed on 18.11.2016 after paying the sale consideration and after depositing the stamp duty as was required in terms of the circle rate as notified by the State.

¶8

It is stated that subsequently, the sale deed was referred to the Collector with a report dated 12.01.2017 mainly on the ground that the stamp duty has not been properly paid. It is stated that thereafter a notice dated 21.06.2017 was issued by the District Magistrate/ Collector fixing 30.06.2017 for appearance and filing objections (Annexure-6). It is stated that the said notice, as per the report, was served on the wife of Rajeev Yadav and was never served in terms of the mandate of Rule 9(2)(b) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. As there was no service of notice, no objections were filed which led to passing of an ex-parte order dated 24.01.2020 against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a revision and specifically took the ground with regard to the non-compliance of Rules 7 and 9 of the 1997 Rules, however, the revisional authority dismissed the revision.

¶9

The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner Sri Sanjay

¶10

Goswami is that in terms of the mandate of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules, there is a specific requirement of serving a notice giving 30 days time whereas in the present case admittedly only 7 days notice was sent. He further argues that in terms of the Rule 9(2)(b), the manner of service of notice is specified, whereas, the service of notice was admittedly made on the wife of Rajeev Yadav who has no concern with the petitioner, LLP and thus, the service made on the wife of Rajeev Yadav cannot be said to be an effective service.

¶11

The Counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the order passed by the Revisional Authority which records that the service of the notice was effected on the wife of Rajeev Yadav and a telephonic call was made by the process server to Rajeev Yadav for the same. He argues that telephonic call, relied upon by the revising authority, cannot be deemed to be an effective service as contemplated under Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules.

¶12

On perusal of the order, it is clear that notice of 7 days was effected on the wife of Rajeev Yadav, thus, there was a clear violation of Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules, even otherwise, the order impugned is an ex-parte order. The petitioner, if served properly and a reasonable time as specified in the Rule was provided, he would have appeared and filed objections and thus, non compliance of Rule 7 and Rule 9 also resulted in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶13

Considering the infraction which is writ large in two orders and there being non-compliance of Rule 7 and Rule 9 as noted by the Revisional Authority, no useful purpose be served in keeping the matter pending, as such, the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 and the order dated 09.01.2023 are set aside.

¶14

The matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate/ Collector (Stamp) to decide the Stamp Case No.3028 of 2017 afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law.

¶15

To avoid any further delay, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear and file objection before the District Magistrate/ Collector (Stamp), Agra on 10.04.2023 at 12:00 noon.

¶16

The District Magistrate/ Collector (Stamp) shall decide the matter with all expedition preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance.

¶17

The amount already deposited by the petitioner during the

¶18

proceedings shall be subject to the final outcome of the order passed by the District Magistrate/ Collector (Stamp), Agra as directed above.

¶19

The writ petition stands allowed .

¶20

Order Date :- 17.3.2023 akverma

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Oriole Infratech LLP v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriole Infratech LLP 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Viraj Polymers Private Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sampurna Nand Tiwari Vs the Additional Commissioner and Another

Ajit Kumar Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Hiravati Devi Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Arvind Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Abdul Rahman Vs Smt. Ayesha Rahman Alias Gurmeet Kaur