Disposed

Laxmi Narayan v. State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Shravasti and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2024WRIC/4712/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Section 47A Indian Stamp Act order imposing stamp deficiency, penalty and interest, decided exparte without a subsequent spot inspection under Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp Rules 1997. The court stayed both impugned orders and sought personal affidavits from the Collector and revisional authority.

What did the court decide?

Operation of impugned orders dated 04.07.2022 and 14.03.2024 stayed; notice to respondent no.4; fresh listing on 10.07.2024.

Laxmi Narayan vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4712 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Laxmi Narayan

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Shravasti And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3.

¶8

Issue notice to opposite party no.4.

¶9

Petition has been filed seeking challenge to order dated 04.07.2022 passed under Sections 47A of the Indian Stamp Act,1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1899) whereby deficiency has been indicated in the instrument of transfer dated 27.11.2021/27.12.2021 and deficiency along with penalty and interest has been imposed. Also under challenge is order dated 14.03.2024 whereby petitioner's revision has been rejected.

¶10

From a perusal of impugned orders, it is evident that proceedings under Sections 47A of the Act of 1899 have been decided exparte only on the basis of the initial ex parte inspection report dated 25.03.2022 which forms the basis of the impugned order. It appears that no subsequent spot inspection was ever undertaken in terms of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997).

¶11

It appears that the officer concerned is completely unaware about the statutory provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 and judgments rendered by this Court in pursuance thereof in Ganga Ram v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 (38) LCD 1991 as well as Ram Khelawan @ Bachchha v. Sate of U.P. and others reported in 2005 (98) RD 511.

¶12

Unfortunately even the revisional authority appears to be unaware of statutory provisions and judgments rendered by this Court.

¶13

In view of aforesaid, list this case on 10.07.2024, as fresh.

¶14

The Collector/District Magistrate, Shrawasthi as well the revisional authority being the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda shall file their personal affidavits indicating reasons for ignoring the statutory provisions and judgments rendered by this Court. The said authorities are warned not to continue passing orders in violation of statutory provisions and pronouncement of this Court.

¶15

Until further orders of this Court, the operation of impugned order dated 04.07.2022 passed under Sections 47A of the Act of 1899 in Case No.103 of 2022 as well as revisional order dated 14.03.2024 passed in Case No.1785 of 2022 shall remain stayed.

¶16

Order Date :- 25.5.2024 kvg/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Laxmi Narayan v. State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Shravasti and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Narayan v. State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Shravasti and 3 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

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. and Ors.

Hausila Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Shankar Vs Board of Revenue Thru. Its Chairman Lko. and 3 Others

Ramapati vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Lucknow and 6 Others

Vindhyachal and Another vs Shri Avinash Singh, District Magistrate, Distt. Ambedkar Nagar

Anil Kumar and Another Vs Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faizabad and Another