Dismissed¶18

Ram Sunder Singh v. Addl.Commissioneradmin.-Ii Devipatan Mandal Gonda and Ors.

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2025WRIC/19118/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ram Sunder Singh v. Addl. Commissioner Admin.-II Devipatan Mandal Gonda; WRIT - C No. 19118 of 2021; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:1112; Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.; 7.1.2025; section 47-A Indian Stamp Act 1899; Section 56(1) revision rejected; Rule 7(3)(c) U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997; ex parte spot inspection 25.09.2019 without prior notice; notice served before 47-A order; new oral ground not permissible at writ stage; enhanced stamp duty on ground of semi-metalled road; Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Stamp Lko. 2023 (41) LCD 1777 distinguished; petition dismissed, own costs.

What did the court decide?

The submission regarding violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 was not raised by the petitioner either in the Revision or in the writ petition. ¶15

Ram Sunder Singh Vs Addl.Commissioneradmin.-Ii Devipatan Mandal Gonda and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.10.2020 under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and the revisional order dated 16.08.2021 are vitiated by violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, owing to an ex parte spot inspection dated 25.09.2019 conducted without prior notice to the petitioner. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Since no pleading regarding violation of Rule 7(3)(c) was taken by the petitioner, the decision relied upon (Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh) had no applicability at all.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The submission regarding violation of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 was not raised by the petitioner either in the Revision or in the writ petition.

¶15

Key takeaways

A new ground cannot be permitted to be taken orally at the stage of writ proceedings.ratio¶15
The record indicated that notice was served upon the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order under section 47-A of the Act of 1899.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 19118 of 2021, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Manish Mathur, J., decided 7.1.2025) dismissed. Petitioner challenged an order dated 28.10.2020 under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, a revisional order dated 16.08.2021 rejecting his Section 56(1) revision, and a citation dated 25.01.2021, contending that the proceedings rested on an ex parte spot inspection report dated 25.09.2019 made without prior notice, violating Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, and relied on Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Stamp Lko., 2023 (41) LCD 1777. The Court held the Rule 7(3)(c) ground was never pleaded in the revision or the petition, that no new ground may be taken orally at the writ stage, that notice stood served before the section 47-A order, and that the cited decision was therefore inapplicable. Petition dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1112

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19118 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Sunder Singh

¶5

Respondent :- Addl.Commissioneradmin.-Ii Devipatan Mandal Gonda And Ors.

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Singh

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Devendra Mohan Shukla, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

¶10

Petition has been filed assailing order dated 28.10.2020 passed under section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1899) as well as revisional order dated 16.08.2021 whereby petitioner’s revision under Section 56(1) of the Act of 1899 has been rejected. Also under challenge is the citation dated 25.01.2021.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that proceedings against petitioner was initiated in pursuance of a report dated 20.09.2019 whereater the entire proceedings have been concluded in an ex parte manner placing reliance on spot inspection report dated 25.09.2019. It is submitted that aforesaid spot inspection report dated 25.09.2019 is also an exparte report which was submitted upon an exparte spot inspection by authority concerned without any prior notice to petitioner. Violation of provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997[hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997] has been alleged.

¶12

It is submitted that even the revisional authority has failed to take notice of fact that order passed under section 47-A of the Act of 1899 has placed reliance on inspection report which did

¶13

not merit any consideration in view of violation of provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered in Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Stamp Lko. and others reported in 2023 (41) LCD 1777.

¶14

Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that a perusal of order passed under section 47-A of the Act of 1899 as well as memorandum of Revision will make it evident that the proceedings have been conducted after issuance and service of notice upon petitioner but had thereafter been required to be passed exparte since petitioner deliberately did not participate in the proceedings. It is further submitted that ground of violation of provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 has not been taken by petitioner either in Revision or in the present writ petition. It is also submitted that stamp duty was paid on the basis of fact that a portion of the property situate on a thoroughway which was not metalled at all but the spot inspection report indicated that the road was in fact a semimetalled one due to which enhanced stamp duty was required to be paid.

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that submission with regard to violation of provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 has not been raised by petitioner either in Revision or in the present writ petition. A new ground cannot be permitted to be taken orally at the stage of writ proceedings. The order also indicates that notice was served upon petitioner prior to passing of impugned order under section 47-A of the Act of 1899.

¶16

In view of fact that no pleading with regard to violation of

¶17

provisions of Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules of 1997 has been taken by petitioner, the decision referred to by learned counsel for petitioner does not have any applicability at all.

¶18

In view of aforesaid, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed . The parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 kvg/-

¶19

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

Ram Sunder Singh v. Addl.Commissioneradmin.-Ii Devipatan Mandal Gonda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sunder Singh v. Addl.Commissioneradmin.-Ii Devipatan Mandal Gonda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narpat Singh College of Pharmac, Basti Thru. Signatory Satish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief /Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and Others

C/M P.P.S. Pharmacy College, Azamgarh Thru. Shri Vishal Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief /Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and Others

Ujjwal Chaudhary Educational Trust, Jugesh Kumar Yadav Thru. Authorized Signatory Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Technical Education, Lko. and Others

Abdul Salam Vs State of U.P Thru Prin Secy Nagar Vikas Lko and Ors.

Sai Care College of Pharmacy, Azamgarh Thru. Authorized Signatory Ashish Porwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and Others

R L Institute of Pharmacy, Varanasi Thru. Authorized Signatory Yogesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Lucknow and Others