Alok Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024WRIC/5764/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging Collector and Commissioner orders for stamp duty deficiency, alleging inspection without Rule 7 notice. Court adjourned for instructions/counter affidavit and stayed operation of the impugned orders until next listing.

What did the court decide?

Operation of the impugned orders dated 03.07.2023 and 22.03.2024 stayed till next listing.

Alok Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5764 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

This Court on 3.7.2024 has passed the following order:

¶6

"1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the Collector Amethi in the Case No. 1459 of 2022, Computerized Case No. D202204710001459 titled as 'State versus Alok Singh and others, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the impugned appellate order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the opposite party no. 2 i.e. Commissioner Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya, under Section 56(1A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶7

2. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had purchased a property and paid stamp duty, but suddenly, he had received a notice under Rule 9 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1997) for deficiency on the stamp duty on the instrument.

¶8

3. It is further submitted that the said notice was issued against the petitioner in pursuance of an inspection report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Amethi, after making the inspection without issuing any notice to the petitioner as required under Rule 7(3C) of the Rules, 1997.

¶9

4. It is further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner respectively are on the basis of the inspection report and if any such inspection was alleged to be made, that is contrary to Rule 7 of the Rules, 1997. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 10.01.2023 passed in Writ C No. 1000019 of 2008 Ajay Agarwal and others versus Commissioner, Lucknow and others.

¶10

5. Learned State Counsel prays for and is granted a weeks' time for seeking instructions in the matter as the impugned orders have nowhere mentioned about the notice prior to making inspection.

¶11

6. List this case in the next cause list, as fresh. "

¶12

By order dated 3.7.2024 time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel for seeking instructions in the matter as the impugned orders have nowhere mentioned about the notice prior to making inspection.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the letter was sent but the instructions are still awaited, so two weeks further time may be granted for seeking instructions or filing counter affidavit.

¶14

As prayed two weeks time is granted.

¶15

List this case after the aforesaid period.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned orders dated 03.07.2023 passed in Case No.1459 of 2022, Computerized Case No.D202204710001459, under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, order dated 22.03.2024 in Appeal No.2305 of 2023 shall remain stayed.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 S. Kumar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Alok Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 5 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

Mohd. Khalil Khan vs Smt. Naheed and 4 Others

Committee of Management Maa Phoolwati Devi Higher Secondary School and Another vs State of Up and 4 Others

Azad Ali and Others vs Suresh and Others

Megha Chaudhary vs State of Up and 4 Others

Committee of Management of Purvanchal Purv Madhyamik Vidhyalaya and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Tivari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others