State of U.P. through Principal Secy. Tax Lucknow Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P.Allahabad

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15219

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1003196 of 2011 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Tax Lucknow Respondent :- Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P.Allahabad Counsel for Petitioner :- C S C Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mehrotra

¶3

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶5

Both the counsels state that the facts of the case have already been noted by this Court in its order dated 07.02.2024, which for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below:

¶6

"The instant writ petition has been filed by the State challenging the order dated 24.12.2010, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition and the legible copy of the same is Annexure No. RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 25.01.2018, per which the appeal filed by the respondents under Section 56(1)A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1899') has been allowed and order dated 08.02.2010, a copy of which is Annexure No.10 by which the private respondents were required to pay additional stamp duty, has been set aside.

¶7

One of the reason as has prevailed upon the appellate authority while setting aside the order of the competent authority dated 08.02.2010 is that considering the judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Baccha vs State of U.P. and others, 2004 (96) RD 368, where proceedings were initiated on the basis of a report, the said report cannot be used by the competent authority or considered for passing a final order unless provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 are not followed.

¶8

Perusal of the order passed by the competent authority dated 24.12.2010, prima facie indicates that it is only the report submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Nawabganj, which appears to have been considered, which, as already indicated above, was used for the purpose of initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 1899. No other material appears to have been considered while passing the order impugned.

¶9

However, learned Standing Counsel states that there appears to be some other certain material, which has been considered as emerges from perusal of the order dated 08.02.2010, for which he prays that the court may go through the

¶10

records.

¶11

Considering of the aforesaid, let the records of the aforesaid Case No.335/306/244 (2009-10) be produced.

¶12

List this case on 20th February, 2024 at 2:15 pm for further hearing."

¶13

Today Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of records which have been brought by Shri Awadhesh Prasad Mishra, Sub Registrar Fatehpur, District Barabanki and which have been perused by Shri Shukla, states that there is no other material on record except the report submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Nawabganj and consequently the order dated 24.12.2010 would be squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Baccha vs State of U.P. and others,

¶14

2004 (96) RD 368 .

¶15

Considering the aforesaid and more particularly when no other material had been considered by the competent authority while passing the order dated 08.02.1010 with the exception of the report which as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Baccha (supra) would only be relevant for the purpose of making of a reference and subsequent thereto the competent authority would have to call for a report in terms of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 which the competent authority has not followed, as specifically held by the appellate authority as such no error is found with the order of appellate authority dated 24.12.2010.

¶16

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 20.2.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. through Principal Secy. Tax Lucknow v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P.Allahabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. through Principal Secy. Tax Lucknow v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P.Allahabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikhil Hospital Sultanpur Road, District Amethi Thru. Its Owner /Smt. Rani Singh and Another Vs Appropriate Authority/State Appellate Authority Thru.Chairman Director Family Welfare,Lko. and Ors.

Abdul Rauf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Rural Devlopment Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Virendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Satya Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Dr. Kashika Srivastava Vs Dr. Abhishek Saxena

Jagdamba Prasad Vs Addl. Commissioner Admn. Lucknow and Others 2