Ramesh Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Stamp and Registration Lko. and 4 Others

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶11

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Raebareli, in Case No. 979 of 2017 (State Versus Ramesh Kumar Tripathi) filed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and also the recovery notice (RC Prapartra-41) dated 09.04.2026 issued pursuant to the impugned order dated 25.10.2023.

¶12

The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a plot of land for agricultural purpose and paid stamp duty as per the prescribed circle rate. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was no construction over the plot of land at the time of execution of sale-deed on 26.06.2015. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of a report dated 22.06.2017, the proceeding against the petitioner under Section 47-A was initiated on the wrong premise treating as subject matter of instrument as of commercial nature.

¶13

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without affording due opportunity of hearing. The passing of the impugned order dated 25.10.2023 came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 13.03.2026 only when the recovery notice

¶14

WRIC No. 4439 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

was received by him. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Collector without following the due procedure as mandated under Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the relevant rules.

¶17

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents has raised preliminary objection regarding the entertainability of the present writ petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy as provided under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is asserted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents that the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not entertainable in view of the fact the petitioner has efficacious statutory remedy available under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶18

Confronted with the aforesaid objection, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that he may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with the liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal as provided under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶19

Taking into consideration the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal as provided under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 within a period of ten days from today. In case the said appeal is filed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as directed herein above, the appellate authority shall make every endeavour to decide the same on merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such appeal by the petitioner. It is also provided that in case, the petitioner prefers an application for Interim Relief along with the said Appeal, the said application for Interim Relief shall be considered and appropriate order on the same be passed strictly in accordance with law, within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of filing of such application.

¶20

April 29, 2026 Arun

¶21

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶22

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

Ramesh Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Stamp and Registration Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Stamp and Registration Lko. and 4 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

Azad Ali and Others vs Suresh and Others

Lakshmi @ Lakshman Prasad Yadav and Another vs Guddu and Others

Farman Khan and Anr. vs Mohd. Sameer and others

Abhishek Kumar vs Collector, District Barabanki & Others

Kallu and Others vs Ahmar Shekh and Another

U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Lko. Thru. Chairman and Another vs M/S Urbanac Developers and Company, Lko. Thru. Mr. Ravi Bansal, Partner and Authorized Signatory