Disposed

Ankit Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, U.P. Sectt. Lucknow and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024WRIC/1797/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging orders demanding additional stamp duty and penalty under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, on grounds of procedural illegality and violation of natural justice. Prima facie submissions favored the petitioner, and a stay was granted on the impugned orders while allowing time for the State to file a counter.

What did the court decide?

Operation of impugned order dated 07.12.2022 and Appellate Order dated 19.01.2024 stayed for four weeks to file counter affidavit.

Ankit Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1797 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ankit Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, U.P. Sectt. Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashank Shukla,Prachi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶6

On 23.02.2024, the following order had been passed:-

¶7

"1. Heard.

¶8

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had purchased a piece of land through a registered sale deed dated 25.02.2019. An inspection was conducted and a report was submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Tarabganj dated 18.09.2019 on the basis of which proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner put in appearance. During pendency of the said case another report was called for which was submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tarabganj dated 05.06.2022. Based on both the reports the order impugned dated 07.12.2022, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, was passed whereby the petitioner has been required to pay additional stamp duty, registration charges and penalty.

¶9

3. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which has been rejected vide an order dated 19.01.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, and hence the writ petition.

¶10

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per specific averment made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition the initial inspection report dated 18.09.2019 on the basis of which proceedings were initiated against the petitioner could not have been relied upon by the competent authority while passing the order impugned taking into consideration the settled position of law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha vs. State of U.P. and another, 2005 SCC OnLine All 2247.

¶11

5. So far as the other report dated 05.06.2022 is concerned the same had been called for without any notice to the petitioner and without the petitioner being given any opportunity of filing of objections to the same which would thus run contrary to the specific provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 which is an illegality going to the root of the matter which would thus vitiate both the orders impugned.

¶12

6. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a weeks' time to

¶13

seek instructions as to whether prior to calling for report dated 05.06.2022 any notice was given to the petitioner and whether such inspection was conducted in presence of the petitioner.

¶14

7. List thereafter as fresh. "

¶15

Despite time having been granted to learned State Counsel twice, instructions have not been forthcoming.

¶16

Prima facie submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner appear to be borne out from the material on record for which purpose the opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

¶17

List this case on 15.05.2024.

¶18

Until further order of this Court, the operation of impugned order dated 07.12.2022 under Section 47A of the Stamp Act and the Appellate Order dated 19.01.2024 shall remain stayed.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.4.2024 Satish

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankit Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, U.P. Sectt. Lucknow and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, U.P. Sectt. Lucknow and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umashankar Pathak Vs Managing Director Pradeshik Co-Operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Lko and 2 Others

Smt. Kum Kum Devi Vs Union Bank of India Thru. General Manager (P) Competent Authority Mumbai and 5 Others

Akhtarunnisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Krishna Kumar and 24 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Secondary Education), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 7 Others

Santoshi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jagat Pal and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lucknow and 4 Others