Disposed

Bhai Lal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Stamp and Registration Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024WRIC/8605/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ - C No. 8605 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court dismissed Section 56(1A) appeal impugned order imposing stamp duty deficiency, penalty, and interest on sale deed, granting stay until next listing date.

What did the court decide?

Stay of impugned order granted until next date of hearing; notice for counter-affidavit issued.

Bhai Lal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8605 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhai Lal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Stamp And Registration Lko. U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Nath Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State.

¶6

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged validity of the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, rejecting the appeal of the petitioners filed under Section 56(1A) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, affirming the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Barabanki, in Case No. 401/188(10-11), State v. Ram Kumar & ors., under Section 47A/33, Indian Stamps Act, 1899, whereby deficiency of Rs. 28,150.00 has been imposed on payment of stamp-duty on a sale-deed dated 22.1.2010. Besides the amount of deficiency, the petitioner has been ordered to pay Rs. 5000.00 as penalty alogwith and to pay interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 1.5% per month.

¶7

It is recorded in the impugned order dated 30.10.2010 that upon inspection of the land it was found out of 300 ares land purchased by the petitioners, cultivation was being done on 100 ares. Thatched roof was kept on some part of the land. Cattle were tied on some part and cow-dung cakes were being made on it. The Assistant Commissioner has found that some land, adjacent to the land in dispute, is under cultivation, whereas some other land is being used for residential purposes and therefore, the land in question has the potential for being used for residential purposes.

¶8

Assailing validity of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when it has been found on

¶9

inspection that some portion of the land was actually under cultivation and the other portions were also being used for the purposes, which are incidental to the agriculture and there is no finding that the land was being used for residential purposes, imposition of stamp-duty, treating the land to be residential, is illegal.

¶10

The matter require consideration.

¶11

The opp. parties may file counter-affidavit within 4 weeks.

¶12

Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, may be filed within 2 weeks thereafter.

¶13

List this case in the week commencing 18.11.2024.

¶14

Till the next date of listing, operation anc implemention of the impugned order dated dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Barabanki, in Case No. 401/188(1011), State v. Ram Kumar & ors., under Section 47A/33, Indian Stamps Act, 1899, shall remain stayed.

¶15

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶16

Order Date :- 3.10.2024 A.Nigam

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhai Lal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Stamp and Registration Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhai Lal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Stamp and Registration Lko. U.P. and 2 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

Dhirendra Kumar Bhandari vs Presiding Officer, U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal,Lko. and Another

Ayushi Singh vs Dharmendra Kumar

Lakshmi @ Lakshman Prasad Yadav and Another vs Guddu and Others

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Housing Commissioner,Lucknow vs Bharat Bhushan

Hawelia Builders Pvt. Ltd. Gautam Budh Nagar Thru. Its Director vs Anupam Srivastava and Another

Anvar Mansoori and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others