Disposed¶19

Vichitra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2026WRIC/2505/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Indian Stamp Act 1899; Section 47-A; Section 56; Section 56(1-A); Additional Commissioner (Stamp) Raebareli; stamp duty; agricultural circle rate; instrument treated as commercial; arbitrariness; statutory remedy; maintainability of writ; writ disposed of with liberty to appeal; appellate authority to decide within three months; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Court No. 19; Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.; Vichitra Kumar v. State of U.P.; WRIT - C No. 2505 of 2026; decided 16 March 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 before the appropriate authority; if filed within two weeks, the appellate authority to entertain the appeal on merit and decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months of filing. ¶19

Vichitra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is entertainable in view of the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

In view of the efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Court, without adverting to the merits and claims of the parties, disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to seek the remedy provided under Section 56 of the said Act.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner files an appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 within two weeks, the appellate authority shall entertain it on merit and shall endeavour to decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of filing.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - C No. 2505 of 2026 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) — Vichitra Kumar v. State of U.P. and others: Writ petition against the order dated 20.11.2025 of the Additional Commissioner (Stamp), Raebareli passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, said to have treated the subject matter of the instruments as commercial although stamp duty had been paid as per the existing agricultural circle rate. On the State's objection regarding entertainability in view of the statutory remedy under Section 56, and the petitioner's own election not to press the petition, the Court disposed of the writ petition without adverting to the merits, granting liberty to pursue the appeal under Section 56(1-A); it directed that if such appeal is filed within two weeks, the appellate authority shall entertain it on merit and endeavour to decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months of filing.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 2505 of 2026

Vichitra Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. And 2 Others	Secy.	Revenue Lko ....	.Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	:	Ajay Kumar, Durgesh, Rawat	Vivek Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:	C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 19

¶8

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Abhishek Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶10

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Stamp), Raebareli in exercise of its power under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has paid the stamp duty as per the existing agricultural circle rate, but the impugned order has been passed in the most arbitrary manner without application of mind treating the subject matter of instruments as commercial.

¶12

At the very outset, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised objection on the entertainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy as provided under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶13

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to press the present petition at this stage and prayed for liberty to file an appeal as provided under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 before the appropriate

¶14

WRIC No. 2505 of 2026

¶15

¶16

authority.

¶17

Taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case, and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Thus, without adverting on the merits and claims of the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy as provided under Section 56 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶18

It is provided that in case the petitioner prefers to file an appeal as provided under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 within a period of two weeks from today, the appellate authority shall entertain the same on merit and shall make every endeavour to decide the said appeal expeditiously, and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the said appeal by the petitioner.

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶20

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶21

March 16, 2026 Virendra

¶22

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

Vichitra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vichitra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramveer Singh Tomer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Registration Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Shobha Tripathi vs Pradeep Kumar

Raj Krishna Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Jitendra Singh vs Presidency Infraheights Private Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory

Lalta Prasad vs Distt. Magistrate,Distt.Barabanki and 3 Others

Kalawati vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Sri Chitrgupt Inter College Gonda Thru. Manager Viswanesh Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 7 Others