Petitioner sought refund of half registration expenses for an exchange court. Court held Respondent liable based on 2008 notice terms. Ordered refund with 8% interest from deed date within 15 days.
Respondent to pay Rs.3,74,315/- and simple interest @ 8% p.a. from 03.12.2011 within 15 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:189951-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37498 of 2024
Petitioner :- Vijay Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Pratap Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh C. Dwivedi
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
'a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to refund half of the expenses, as per the clause No.4 of the deeds, i.e. Rs.3,74,315/- (Stamp duty and registration fee) to the beneficiaries, which was solely bear by them, for execution of both the exchange deeds dated 03.12.2011 regarding their lands taken under the Master Plan Road of Taj Nagari IInd Phase at Agra.'
and half by the affected persons. The petitioner and his family members were allotted different plots. The condition relating to sharing of expenses to an equal extent specifically finds mention in the exchange deeds which were ultimately executed on 03.12.2017. At that time, the petitioners were asked to pay the entire expenses towards registration with the assurance that fifty percent of the amount would be refunded to them. However, since the said amount was not refunded to them, therefore, the petitioners were compelled to file Writ-C No. 59323 of 2014. It was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 17.09.2016. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:
“In this backdrop, we have proceeded to examine the Board Resolution dated 2.11.2013. The relevant portion of the Board Resolution dated 2.11.2013 is reproduced as under:-
8- Ikzkf/kdj.k dh ;kstukUrZxr ekLVj Iyku jksM esa dk'rdkj@ lgdkjh vkokl lfefr;ksa dh vk jgh Hkwfe ds cnys esa Hkwfe tkus ,oa fofue; foys[k fu"ikfnr djk;s tkus esa iz;qDr LVkEi M~;wVh dh /kujkf'k dks vk/kk&vk/kk ogu djus ds lEcU/k esaA
cSBd esa ppkZ gqbZ rFkk loZlEefr ls ;g fu.kZ; gqvk fd Hkfo"; esa Hkwfe ds cnys Hkwfe fn;s tkus ds izdj.kksa esa iw.kZ LVkEi M;wVh lEcaf/kr dk'rdkj }kjk gh ogu dh tk;sxhA izkf/kdj.k }kjk dksbZ /kujkf'k ogu ugh dh tk;sxhA
As per the aforesaid resolution, this much is reflected that the present resolution had been passed on 2.11.2013, whereby it was resolved that in future the whole stamp duty will be paid by the concerned tenure holder for execution of exchange deed. But we find from the record in question that in the present matter the notices had been sent to the petitioners way back on 19.08.2008 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition), wherein terms and conditions were categorically averred. The relevant is extracted below:- ”
“2- lMd esa vk jgh Hkwfe ,oa izkf/kdj.k }kjk vkidks nh tk jgh Hkwfe ds ekfydkuk gLrkUrj.k ds fy, ,DlpsUt MhM esa vkus okys O;; dh vk/kh /kujkf'k dk ogu vkidks djuk gksxkA”
2
Once a categorical assurance was given by the ADA way back in the year 2008 while sending the notices that for execution of exchange deed the half of the amount was to be borne by the tenure holders and remaining 50% was to be borne by ADA, then at this stage on the basis of Board Meeting dated 2.11.2013 the ADA cannot take this plea that the said benefit cannot be extended to the petitioners. The said resolution is categorical to the extent that in future the stamp duty will be paid by the concerned tenure holders for execution of exchange deed and as such the ground taken by the ADA for denying the said benefit is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said resolution is not applicable in the present matter.
We are of the opinion that once exchange deeds had been executed way back in the year 2011 on the assurance so extended by ADA way back in the year 2008 then at this stage in the present matter they cannot take somersault on the basis of Board Resolution dated 2.11.2013.
In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay half of the amount towards execution of transfer deeds as has been undertaken in the notices (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”
3
placed on record by learned counsel for the respondent, Development Authority. It is as follows:
“ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn esa fopkjk/khu fjV ;kfpdk la0&37498@2024] Jh fot; flag izfr m0iz0 jkT; rFkk vU; esa izkf/kdj.k dh mik/;{k egksn;k us ekLVj Iyku jksM] rktuxjh] Qsl&f}rh;] vkxjk ds fy;s ;kph rFkk mlds ifjtu ,oa izkf/kdj.k ds e/; fu"ikfnr ,Dlpsat MhM esa ;kph rFkk mlds ifjtu }kjk ogu dh xbZ LVkEi M~;wVh rFkk jftLVªs’ku Qhl dh /kujkf’k dk vk/ kk Hkkx fgrxzkgh (Beneficiaries) dks 15 fnu esa okil djus ds fy;s lgefr iznku dj nh gSA”
4
03.12.2011 till the date of actual payment. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed within fifteen days as undertaken by the Development Authority in the written instructions supplied by it.
Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Mukesh Kr.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)
5
Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Development Authority is liable to refund half of the stamp duty and registration expenses paid by the petitioner despite a subsequent Board Resolution.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of execution of the exchange deed.
Whether the Development Authority must pay simple interest at 8% per annum from 03.12.2011 until actual payment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ-C No. 59323 of 2014Followed¶9
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Singh
State of Up
Taj Nagari Development Authority
Anish Kumar Gupta
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
