Dhankuret vs Collector / District Magistrate Lucknow Distt. Lucknow and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 169 of 2026

Dhankuret

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Collector / District Magistrate Lucknow Distt. Lucknow And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajey Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 19

¶8

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Ajey Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohd. Kasim, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondent and perused the material available on record.

¶10

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the recovery certificate issued by the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Tahsildar, Tahsil-Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that Tahsildar-respondent no. 3 issued an un-dated recovery certificate against the petitioner and the Revenue Authorities are taking coercive measures against the petitioner in the most arbitrary manner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of instrument is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record. It is contended that on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased the land in question as an agricultural plot of land and paid stamp duty as per the prescribed circle rate.

¶12

In paragraph no. 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically averred that the appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, against the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Lucknow in the proceeding under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 having Case No. 01792 of 2020 is pending before the Deputy Commissioner

¶13

WRIC No. 169 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

(Stamp), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. The said appeal is registered as Stamp Appeal No. C-202510000002848.

¶16

This Court vide order dated 12.01.2026 directed the learned Standing Counsel for the seek instruction in the matter.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondent, on the basis of the instruction received from the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Lucknow dated 20.01.2026; submitted that the aforesaid appeal is still pending for adjudication before the learned Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Lucknow and the next date fixed in the case is 27.01.2026. The copy of instruction is taken on record. The relevant portion of the aforesaid instruction is reproduced as under:

¶18

"That it is stated that before filing the writ petition, the petitioner had already filed Appeal No. C202510000002848 (Dhankuret Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others) under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 against the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue). Lucknow in the stamp case before deputy commissioner stamp, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. By letter dated 01.09.2025, the Court of the Deputy Commissioner (Stamps) sought a joint site inspection report from the SubDivisional Magistrate. Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow and the Sub-Registrar, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow. On 20.01.2026, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Registrar, Bakshi Ka Talab, conducted the site inspection in the presence of the petitioner. The inspection report recorded that around the disputed land there are residential constructions and residential activities. The disputed land itself, divided into three plots/khasras, was lying vacant as fallow land. No agricultural activity was being carried out on the spot. and its utility, in accordance with the surrounding activities, was similar to non-agricultural land. In the appeal next date of hearing on 27.01.2026 In the court of Deputy Commissioner stamp Lucknow Division Lucknow.

¶19

The order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the ADM (F & R)

¶20

WRIC No. 169 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

Lucknow in Stamp Case No. D202010460001792 is legal, valid, and sustainable. The writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. The deficiency in stamp duty as assessed should be upheld to protect public revenue.

¶23

The petitioner should be directed to await the decision in the appeal. When the Act itself provides for an appellate remedy, filing a writ petition directly before the Hon'ble High Court without awaiting the appellate decision is not legally proper."

¶24

In view of the fact that the statutory appeal against the order dated 10.02.2025 is under consideration before the competent Appellate Court, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served to keep this writ petition pending. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Lucknow to decide the said pending appeal expeditiously strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties preferably within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

¶25

It is further provided that in case, the petitioner prefers an appropriate application for interim relief in the aforesaid pending appeal within ten days from today, the learned appellate Court shall consider the same in accordance with law and will pass a reasonable order at the earliest in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, on the subject of grant of interim relief, in the cases of Mool Chand Yadav & another Versus Raza Buland Sugar Company, reported in 1982(3) SCC 484 and in the case of Ali Sher Versus State of Uttar Pradesh through Collector, Bijnor reported in 2007 (102) RD 498.

¶26

January 21, 2026 Arun

¶27

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶28

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

Dhankuret v. Collector / District Magistrate Lucknow Distt. Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhankuret v. Collector / District Magistrate Lucknow Distt. Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abc Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd. West Delhi Thru.Its Authorised Representative Rajesh Joshi vs Naresh Kumar and 2 Others

Abc Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Rajesh Joshi vs Jitendra Bahadur Singh and 3 Others

Abc Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Rajesh Joshi vs Sachin Dhameeja and 2 Others

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Executive Engineer Lko. vs Vishal Singh

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Private Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Private Limited Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory