Disposed

Vimal Kishore and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Deptt. of Stamp and Registration, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2024WRIC/4554/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging orders under the Indian Stamp Act finding stamp duty deficiency based on a spot inspection report three years after the deed. Court noted arguments that property nature is determined as on the date of execution and stayed the appellate order subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Operation of order dated 06.02.2024 and 20.07.2022 stayed subject to deposit of Rs.56396/- within four weeks.

Vimal Kishore and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4554 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vimal Kishore And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Deptt. Of Stamp And Registration, Lucknow And Others

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shanker Tewari,Sheo Pal Singh,Vishwakant Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.7.2022 passed under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 whereby the instrument of the transfer dated 11.01.2021 has been found to be deficient in Stamp duty due to which the same along with penalty and interest has been imposed.

¶8

Also under challenge is appellate order dated 06.02.2024 passed under Section 56 (1- A) of the Act allowing the appeal and remanding the matter.

¶9

It has been submitted that the order passed under Section 47 A is based on the spot inspection report dated 31.01.2021 in which also the plot under transfer has been indicated as agricultural with a temple and other scattered residences being in its vicinity. It is submitted that the same was the basis for finding the instrument of transfer being deficient stamp duty.

¶10

It is further submitted that the appellate authority has thereafter remanded the case for further fresh spot inspection to determine the distance of scattered construction from the plot under transfer.

¶11

Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of . State of U.P. and others v. Ambrish Tandon and another , reported in (2012) 5 SCC 566 as well as Pushpa Sareen v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2015(33) LCD

¶12

1575 to submit that the nature of property under transfer is to be seen as on the date of execution of the deed and not three years thereafter. It is further submitted that it has also been held that the nature of properties in vicinity of the plot in question has been held to be irrelevant and it is only nature of the plot under transfer which is a relevat issue and therefore also the remand order has been incorrectly passed.

¶13

It is submitted that once the spot inspection report itself indicated the property as agricultural there was no occasion for the impugned orders to have been passed.

¶14

Prima facie submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner have force and require consideration for which opposite party are granted four weeks time for filing counter affidavit.

¶15

List this case on 27.7.2024. Until further orders of this Court, the operation of the order dated 06.02.2024 passed in appeal no.1689/22 and order dated 20.7.2022 passed by District Collector, Sitapur shall remain stayed subject to the condition the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.56396/- before the prescribed authority within a period of four weeks from today.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.5.2024 mks

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vimal Kishore and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Deptt. of Stamp and Registration, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Kishore and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Deptt. of Stamp and Registration, Lucknow and 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

Similar cases

Kudrat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Chitra Misra and 13 Others Vs M/S Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd. Thru. Managing Director and Another

Asheer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Badri Kumar Shrestha vs Central Bureau of Invetigation Thru. Its Superitendent of Police

Zuber Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.