Allowed

Mukesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2014WP227/2548/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court under Article 227 set aside the Board of Revenue's order dismissing a revision as barred by limitation. The court held that the petitioner's earlier review application justified condoning delay and quashed the Collector's illegal order which computed stamp duty per square feet instead of the prescribed per square meter rate.

What did the court decide?

Order of the Collector of Stamps dismissing review application and subsequent Board order dismissing revision as barred by limitation set aside; petitioner directed to pay deficit duty on per square m

Mukesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

,<A."."^-^'^l-^-^'~' s •ea.it.'t l&JS

¶2

¶3

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

W.P.^NO.^'6/ 2008

¶5

<-^

¶6

PETITIONER /
,Y
•••'..^y
.A^.^^^..^ ,'of
^S^E^•••"'
>-'ia.^..'-','/«>.^"'
>-'"^y
^y:,' •
RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mukesh Agrawal

¶8

S/o Late Layak Ram-AgrawaI, 56 yrs R/o Manisha Stationers G-l/279,

¶9

Bhiwadi, Rajasthan,

¶10

At Present R/o Kodagaon,

¶11

Distt. Bastar (C.G.)

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

State of ChhattisgaTh,

¶14

Through: The Secretary,

¶15

Revenue Department, Mantralaya,

¶16

Raipur(C.G.)

¶17

The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority'cuni Revenue Board C.G. Circuit Court, Jagdalpur (C.G.)

¶18

The CoUector of Stampscum

¶19

District Collector, Jagdalpjt.ir (C.G.)

¶20

^.
5.

¶21

Ramesh Patel,

¶22

S/o Late Shanti Bhai Patel, 38 yrs,

¶23

Smt. Nirmala Ben,

¶24

W/o late Shanti Bhai Patel, 53 yrs, Res. No. 4 & 5 Resident of

¶25

Rojgaripara, Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶26

WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

'fi, &~

HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR

¶31

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra^Iohan^hnvastava, J.

¶32

WRIT PETITION 1227) N0.2548 of 2008

¶33

Petitioner Mukesh Agrawal

¶34

Versus

¶35

Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶36

Writ Petition under Artide227 ofthej::onstitution oUndia

¶37

Present:Shri Harshal Chouhan, cdunsel for the petitioner. Shri Siddharth Rathod, Deputy Goveminent Advocate for the State.

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

«;.

¶40

(Passed on 08-07-2014)

¶41

Heard.

¶42

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against order dated 27-12-2007 passed by the Board of Revenue, by which, petitioner's revision has been dismissed as barred by liinitation.

¶43

Quintessential facts of the case are that a power of attorney was executed by the petitioner-Mukesh Agrawal in favoiir of Shanti Bhai Patel (since deceased) on 29-05-2001. As this document required registration and affixation of stamp duty, the petitioner paid stamp duty @ Rs.22/- per square feet. Later on, on the basis of audit objection that the stamp duty is deficit, the Collector of Stsunp initiated proceedings for recoveiy of deficit starap duty under the provisions of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 by issuing notice to the petitioner. Vide order dated 28-07-2005, the CoUector of Stamps ordered that the petitioner is liable to pay deficit stamp duty ofRs.74,505/- along with deficit registration fee ofRs.7154/-.

¶44

[L^

¶45

•3 '"^i <^ Vff 'y^.:^^';';;;:^ ^s. .,..'''

¶46

The petitioner initiaUy moved an application before the CoUector itself to re-consider its order, but that was rejected by the CoUector vide its order dated 22-02-2007 on the ground that such application was not m.aintainable. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue on 23-05-2007._As there was delay in filing the revision petition, the petitioner moved an application for condonation of delay. The Board of Revenue, however, rejected fhe application for condonation of delay resiilting in disraissal of revision also. This gives rise to the instant petition.

¶47

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that on the face of it, the order passed by the Collector of Stamps is illegal. He further submits fhat even according to the guidelines, rates have been prescribed on per square meter basis and'not on per square feet basis, but th.e Collector passed the order by calculating the deficit stamp duty on the basis of Rs.237/- per square feet. He further subinits that after the order was passed by the Collector of Stamps, as the petitioner was not noticed, the petitioner, initially moved an application before the Collector of Stamps, but when application was rejected on 22-02-2007, he preferred a revision petition before fhe Board of Revenue on 23-05-2007, which could not be said to be dglayed. In any case, the reasons shown for condonation of delay were sufficient but the Board of Revenue adopted unduly restricted approach.

¶48

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that irrespective of whether the rates are to be calculated oh per square

¶49

,^:y::ii-'; !;•••..,.

¶50

:fr1

¶51

meter basis or per square feet basis, as the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed as barred by Umitation, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. He submits that against the order passed by the Collector of Stamps on 28-07-2005, the petitioner instead of filing revision petition, which was the remedy available to the petitioner, wiftiout any basis, moved an application before the Collector of Stamps, which was not maintainable under the law, therefore, on this ground, this cannot be treated as sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing revision petition. The revision petition, was therefore, delayed by 1 year & 10 inonths and the Board of Revenue committed no illegality or error ofjurisdiction in dismissing the petitioner's revision petition.

¶52

Facts floating on the surface of the case are that the petitioner had suffered an order passed by the Collector of Stainps on 28-07-2005. It appears that the petitioner on a notion that he has not been noticed, moved an appUcation before the Collector of Stamps for review of its own order. That application was rejected on 22-02-2007 and thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition on 23-05-2007.

¶53

True it is that the application Bled by the petitioner before the Collector seeking review or recall of order dated 28-07-2005 was not maintainable. However, it is borne out froin these facts that the petitioner had been taking certam steps for reddressal of his grievance. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner had moved an appUcation before the CoUector of Stamps, which was rejected on

"%. ffs^.

ift»

|11»;|, !§fJj

22-02-2007, in the considered opinion of this Court, was sufficient to condone the delay in filing revision petition. While considering appUcation for condonation of delay, it is not fhe length of time but the explanation, which is offered, is required to be taken into consideration. As far as possible, there should always be an effort to decide the case on merits rather than shutting the doors of justice on the ground of delay, unless such delay is long as also iinexplained or when fhe Court finds fhat there was deliberate or malafide act. Moreover in considering application for condonation of delay, Uberal approach is required to be adopted. In the present case, the Board of Revenue has taken unduly restricted approach and dismissed fhe revision petition only on the ground of delay by rejecting application for condonation.

¶58

1- <

¶59

Taking rnto consideration that this petition had remained pending before this Court for the last six years, instead of reverting the matter back, it would be proper to decide the matter.

¶60

A short issue for consideration is whefher the petitioner was liable to pay starap duty @ Rs.237/- per square meter basis or per square feet basis.

¶61

The petitioner has come out with a case that in the guidelines ••^. issued by the respondents, the rates have been prescribed on per square meter basis. This is manifest from the guidelines filed by the petitioner vide Annexure P-7, wherein rates are prescribed in respect of the period from 2001-2002 on per square rneter basis. On this factual aspect, there is no dispute. In the retum filed by

¶62

£_

¶63

¶64

'^'.. ./'^K"^ ^' fs ^'^f'**-':"T':<Sil;: ^.•f'^-^'\ ^

¶65

the respondents, same guidelines have been placed on record, which shows fhat the rates have been prescribed on per square meter basis and not per square feet.

¶66

In that view of the matter, the order passed by fhe CoUector of Stamps is clearly perverse. The deficit stamp duty has been computed on fhe basis of Rs.237/- per square feet, whereas it ought to be Rs.237/- per square meter.

¶67

As an upshot of above discussion, I have to hold that the order passed by the Collector of Staraps is illegal and is therefore, set aside. It will be wifhin the authority of the Collector to issue direction for deposit of deficit stamp duty @ Rs.237/- per square meter.

¶68

The petition is accordingly aUowed.

¶69

Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge

¶70

Tuiriane

¶71

Mukesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and 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

Santosh Kumar Chaudhari Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Vipin Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chandraprabha Kedia Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

J.Shukla and Co. Pachpedhi Naka,Raipur Vs State of M.P. and Ors.

Narad Kumar Dewagan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Anil Kumar Dansena Vs Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank and Ors.