Allowed

Nadeem Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Ors.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024WRIC/23354/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed orders demanding additional stamp duty for a corrigendum correcting a plot number in a sale deed. It held that the revenue order was erroneous as it contradicted a civil court judgment confirming no change in land boundaries and the corrigendum only reduced the recorded area. Petitioner's writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 23.05.2018 and 03.04.2013 are quashed.

Nadeem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11772

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23354 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nadeem Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

And

¶5

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23353 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nadeem Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

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

¶8

Both the learned counsels for the parties state that the connected writ petition namely Writ C No.23353 of 2018 in Re: Nadeem Khan Vs. State of U.P. And Ors. also deals with the same impugned orders. Consequently, the Court proceeds to decide both the petitions. For convenience, the facts of the Writ C No.22254 of 2018 are being taken.

¶9

The instant petition has been filed praying for the following main relief(s):

¶10

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.05.2018 and 03.04.2013 passed by the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 as contained in Annexure Nos.1 & 2 to the writ petition.

¶11

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents concerned specially O.P. No.3 not

¶12

to demand/make pressure to deposit the stamp duty in pursuance of order dated 23.05.2018 and 03.04.2013 passed by the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 as contained in annexure Nos.1 & 2 to the writ petition."

¶13

The case set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had purchased land bearing Gata No.463 in Village Jaganpur, Pargana Mangalsi, Tehsil Sohawal, District Faizabad of which the boundaries had also been indicated. The area which was purchased by the petitioner as indicated in the sale deed was indicated as 0.473 hectare. The sale deed was executed on 14.07.2010, a copy of which is annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 27.08.2018. Inadvertently, the Gata number in the said sale deed was indicated as 546.

¶14

The petitioner tried to file a Titamma (Corrigendum) seeking correction in the said sale deed which was not permitted which, thus, resulted in the petitioner filing an Original Suit No.270 of 2011 in Re: Nadim Khan Vs. Mahboob Ali and Another before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad. Incidentally, the respondent in the said civil suit was the seller of the said property.

¶15

The suit was filed praying for a direction to the Sub-Registrar to carry out the correction in the sale deed.

¶16

The learned court vide judgment and order dated 08.09.2011, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition, after specifically noting that it is only the plot number which is sought to be corrected by the plaintiff / petitioner (herein) in the sale deed dated 14.07.2010 i.e. the plot number was sought to be corrected from 546 (erroneously mentioned) to 463 and the boundaries of the said plot do not change, has directed the SubRegistrar to make the said correction in the sale deed as Gata

¶17

No.463 instead of Gata No.546 after payment of due charges.

¶18

In pursuance thereof, the petitioner claims to have filed an application for correction, a copy of which is annexure SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 27.08.2018, which duly indicates that it is only the plot number which was sought to be corrected and the boundaries remain one and the same.

¶19

The competent authority though has permitted the said correction but vide order dated 03.04.2013, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, passed under the provision of Section 33/47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has indicated that on account of the said correction which is sought to be incorporated in the sale deed, the title and responsibilities of both the parties change substantively which is also different from the original sale deed and consequently, the petitioner has been required to pay additional stamp duty upon the same.

¶20

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which has been rejected vide order dated 23.05.2018, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, and hence the instant petition.

¶21

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was on account of typographical error that the gata number in the sale deed dated 14.07.2010 had been indicated as 546 instead of 463 while the boundaries of the said plot / gata remain the same. He contends that the competent court in this regard, which is the learned civil court, has specifically observed the same while passing the judgment and order dated 08.09.2011 and required the Sub-Registrar to make the said corrections and thus, the competent authority has patently erred in law while indicating that there is substantial change in the title and responsibilities of the parties in making the said correction.

¶22

Elaborating the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court towards the boundaries as mentioned in the Corrigendum which indicates that the boundaries are one and the same and it is only the plot number which is sought to be changed. Interestingly, the area stands reduced from the one earlier recorded i.e. from 0.0788 hectare to 0.0626 hectare and thus, it is contended that keeping this into view the competent authority has patently erred in directing the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty. He further argues that this aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the appellate court while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner summarily.

¶23

On the other hand, learned Standing counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit, more particularly in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, argues that the area of the said khasra changed with the Corrigendum and there has been material alteration in the sale deed, consequently, it in fact becomes an exchange deed and thus, competent authority has required the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty upon the same.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶25

From perusal of the records, it emerges that the petitioner had purchased a particular piece of land through a registered sale deed dated 14.07.2010. Erroneously, in the said sale deed, the gata number is mentioned as 546 instead of 463. The boundaries of the said gata remain the same. The petitioner tried to have the said correction made in the sale deed but to no avail, as a result, he was constrained to approach the learned civil court for seeking a direction to the competent authority to make the said correction in the sale deed. The competent court, vide

¶26

its judgment and order dated 08.09.2011, had specifically observed that no boundaries are sought to be changed by the petitioner while seeking the said correction rather it is only the correction in the gata number which is required to be made and after observing the same, has required the competent authority to make the correction in the sale deed after taking due charges. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed an application for correction / Titamma / Corrigendum which as per the Corrigendum indicates that the boundaries of the said plot are one and the same rather the area is slightly reduced. The competent authority though has allowed the correction vide order dated 03.04.2013, yet required the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty by observing that there has been substantial change in the title and responsibilities of the parties. Upon an appeal being filed, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner and hence the petition.

¶27

From the aforesaid facts, it thus emerges that the correction was sought by the petitioner in the sale deed dated 14.07.2010 to the extent that a wrong gata number had been mentioned. The competent court vide its judgment and order dated 08.09.2011 has specifically observed that there is no change in the boundaries of the said plot and the correction is only with regard to gata number leaving unchanged the boundaries. Incidentally, in the Corrigendum, which has been filed by the petitioner, the area of the plot stands "Reduced" instead of having increased but the boundaries are one and the same. Disregarding the same, the competent authority vide order dated 03.04.2013 has indicated that the correction in effect, if allowed, specifically changes the title and responsibilities of the parties.

¶28

From perusal of the order impugned dated 03.04.2013, it

¶29

does not emerge as to how the competent authority has arrived at the said finding of there being substantial change in the title and responsibilities of the parties more particularly when the competent court having jurisdiction i.e. learned Civil Judge has specifically observed vide its judgment and order dated 08.09.2011 that there is no change in the boundaries and it is only correction in the gata number which is sought to be incorporated in the said sale deed. Thus, the aforesaid findings of the competent authority would run patently contrary to the findings recorded by the competent court in this regard as per the judgment dated 08.09.2011. Even otherwise, from perusal of the Corrigendum, which has been moved by the petitioner and which has been allowed by the competent authority, there is no change in the boundaries of the said land and it emerges that it is only a correction of the gata number which was sought to be made in the said sale deed and no boundaries have been modified or changed in any manner. Thus, it emerges that the order of the competent authority dated 03.04.2013 recording that there is substantial change in the title and responsibilities of the parties is thus clearly erroneous. This aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 23.05.2018.

¶30

Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 23.05.2018 and 03.04.2013, copies of which are annexure 1 & 2 to the petition respectively are quashed.

¶31

Consequences to follow.

¶32

Order Date :- 8.2.2024 S. Shivhare

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nadeem Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Ors.

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

Smt. Kunta Devi Vs Smt. Chamela Devi and Anr.

Prem Shanker @ Premi Vs Addl. D.J.Iii Unnao and Others

Abdul Majid Ansari Vs Additional District Judge Court No. 2 Sultanpur and Ors.

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Housing Commissioner Vs Mohammad Nasir and 3 Others

Nand Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 7 Others

Mohammad Umar Warsi Vs Sitwat Jameel and Others