Smt. Vimla Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC23 May 2024WRIC/4602/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging office orders and demand letters for mutation charges. Court notes respondents failed to show statutory authority for the fees and stays the impugned orders pending further inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Consequential stay on orders dated 20.12.2019 and 27.04.2024 demanding mutation charges.

What the court decided

Smt. Vimla Pandey vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4602 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Vimla Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma,Vivek Pandey

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶4

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Vivek Pandey, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondent and Shri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the following two main prayers:-

¶7

"(i). issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the office order dated 22.08.2015, demand letter dated 20.12.2019 & 27.4.2024 issued by opposite party no 2 & 4 to the petitioner for depositing of mutation charges to mutate the name of petitioner in the record of Nagar Nigam Lucknow contained in ANNEXURE NO.3, 4 & 5 respectively to this writ petition ;

¶8

(II) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party no.2,3 & 4 to record the name of petitioner at the place and name of previous owner in the record of Nagar Nigam Lucknow with regard to House no.3/168 situated at Vinay Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had bought the house No.3/168 constructed on plot no.3/168 Vinay Khand-3, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow from the previous house owner Shri Govind Singhal, Son of late Ram Sharan Das Singhal and Smt. Rita Singhal, wife of Govind Singhal through a registered sale deed on 13.09.2018. After purchase of house, the petitioner moved an application for mutation on 30.10.2018 for mutation of her name in the municipal record for the purposes of payment of house and water tax etc. In pursuance of such application, the Nagar

¶10

Nigam had issued a letter dated 20.12.2018 by which they have demanded 1% of the sale price of the house as mutation charges i.e. Rs.1,70,000/-.

¶11

It has been submitted that respondent nos.2 to 4 are not empowered to impose any mutation charge as the petitioner wanted her name to be recorded in the Nagar Nigam for the purposes of payment of tax/water tax charges etc. The petitioner moved an application demanding the details of the provisions under which mutation fee is being charged. However, he has been informed that in pursuance of the some decision taken by the Municipal Corporation on 22.08.2015, the said direction has been issued for taking 1% of sale consideration as mutation charges.

¶12

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 to 4 was put to specific query by this court as to under which section of Municipal Corporation Act or Rules, framed thereunder, or even by the respondents, such mutation charges are being demanded from the house owner. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 could not give any appropriate/satisfactory answer to the court's query.

¶13

This court is of the prima facie., opinion that the matter requires consideration.

¶14

Consequently, the orders dated 20.12.2019 and 27.04.2024 impugned in this writ petition are stayed till the next date of listing.

¶15

List this matter on 03.07.2024.

¶16

In the meantime, pleadings be exchanged between the parties.

¶17

Whenever the case is listed next, the name of Shri Vivek Pandey, be shown as counsel for the respondents.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.5.2024 Pks

¶19

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Vimla Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Smt. Vimla Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development U.P. Lko. and Others

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

Miss X (Victim of S.T. No. 126/2011) vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ranjeesh Kumar Singh and Ors. vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Environment, Forest and Climate Change Lko and Ors.

Satya Narayan Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law and L.R. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

M/S Hind Ent Udyog, Hardoi Thru. Partner Syed Anisul Hasan and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Tax and Registration) U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Satnam Singh and Others vs Cane Commissioner U.P. Lko. and Others

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