Smt. Manmeet Kaur vs State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Chief Secretary Stamp And Registration, Lucknow & Ors.

Sri. Onkar Nath Tiwari, along with Sri Satish Chandra Kashish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Arun Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State/respondents Nos. 1 to 3, are present.

By means of the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

The aforesaid prayer no. (v) has been incorporated by the petitioner by way of amendment pursuant to the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by this Court.

The State-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed their counter affidavit dated 18.05.2022 along with an application for dismissal of the writ petition.

A succinct recap of the factual matrix, as adumbrated in the pleadings, is that the petitioner purchased a piece of land through a registered sale deed dated 14.03.2019 registered as Document / Deed no. 4490/2019 in Gata No. 499/0.210 hectare, ad-measuring area-189.75 square meters situated at Revenue Village Gird Gonda, Gramin Pargana Tehsil and District- Gonda, Uttar Pradesh for a consideration of Rs. 63,67,000/-(Sixty-Three Lakh Sixty- Seven Thousand only). The petitioner on the said Sale Deed, paid the stamp duty at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per square meters (Rs. Seven Thousand only).

The Sub-Registrar Gonda reported a deficiency in stamp duty and on the basis of the said report the Collector, Gonda (Opposite Party No.3) initiated proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

As per the report submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Gonda (Sadar) which is the foundation of the aforesaid proceedings; the petitioner’s purchased land situates on the main Gonda – Bahraich road and is adjacent to the land that was purchased by her husband namely Sri. Gurmeet Singh under the registered Sale Deed having No.- 4489/2019 on the payment of the Stamp duty @ Rs. 28,000 per square meter, whereas for the rear portion of the same property, the petitioner/ Smt. Manmeet Kaur wife of Sri. Gurmeet Singh has paid Stamp duty @ of Rs. 7,000 per square meter on the Sale Deed No. 4990/2019 executed in her favour. Notwithstanding, that both sale deeds pertained to the two portions of the same integrated property.

In the aforesaid proceedings a notice dated 20.06.2019 was issued indicating 05.02.2020 as the date fixed in the case. However, the Petitioner did not appear before the learned Collector Gonda / Opposite party No. 3 nor submitted any objection / reply or contested the Sub-Registrar's report, despite due opportunities having been given to her. The Collector (Opposite Party No. 3) then proceeded with the case ex-parte against the petitioner. Finally, the learned Collector (Opposite Party No.3) vide order dated 18.02.2020 decided the case by holding that the petitioner had deliberately split a single property into two conveyances and with ulterior motive applied different rates to two portions of the same unit in getting the Sale Deed registered, and held deficiency in the Stamp duty in respect of subject matter of instrument. While passing the impugned order the learned Collector (Opposite Party No. 3) observed that, since the petitioner despite due service of notice and sufficient opportunity, failed to appear in the proceedings and did not file any objection / reply, thereby leaving the material available on record unrebutted. Upon consideration of the record, the learned Collector (Opposite Party No.3) in Case no. 00825/2019 found no reason to disbelieve the inspection report submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Gonda (Sadar) in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to pay the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 3,52,190/- with 100 percent penalty, totaling to Rs. 7,04,380/- along with the interest. For ready reference the relevant part of the impugned order dated 18.02.2020 is extracted herein below:

The petitioner, thereafter, filed appeal under section 56(1-A) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 before the learned Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda (Opposite Party No. 2). The said Appeal was registered as Case no. 00418/2020 (Computerized Case No.-C 202008000000418).

The petitioner, in the said appeal filed an application on 03.03.2021 dated 18.02.2021 / 03.03.2021 praying therein for preponement of the date fixed for hearing of Appeal. In the said application the petitioner stated that she did not wish to further continue with the said Appeal and is willing to make the payment of the amount already determined as deficiency in the stamp duty. For ready reference, the contents of the said Application filed on 03.03.2021 is reproduced herein below:

The petitioner also filed an application dated 18.02.2021 / 03.03.2021. The said application is reproduced herein below for ready reference :

It is evident from the perusal of the above-quoted application that the petitioner voluntarily admitted the deficiency in stamp duty, attributing it to the wrong advice given by the sale-deed writer and had very categorically expressed her willingness to deposit the deficient amount. However, in the second application she prayed for the waiver of the penalty imposed on her vide the impugned order dated 18.02.2020.

On the receipt of the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner, the learned Additional Commissioner (Opposite Party No. 2) dismissed the Appeal vide the order dated 25.03.2021. For ready reference, the order dated 25.03.2021 is reproduced below:

The pleading as is available on record shows that, the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order, deposited the following amounts:

There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner ever challenged the aforesaid order dated 25.03.2021 as such the same attained finality.

The petitioner thereafter filed an another Appeal on 18.11.2021 against the order of the Collector (Opposite Party No.3) dated 18.02.2020 again under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The said Appeal was registered as Case No. 1174 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. C202108000001174) before the learned Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda (Opposite Party No. 2) challenging the order dated 18.02.2020 for the second time before the same forum, on the identical grounds, as quoted herein below for ready reference:

The aforesaid Appeal having Case No. 1174 of 2021, came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2022 as not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner herself had voluntarily withdrawn the earlier appeal and expressed her willingness to pay the deficient stamp duty as determined by the Collector / District Magistrate (Opposite Party No.3) vide order dated 18.02.2020, as such appeal against the same very order is not maintainable under law. For ready reference, the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 is reproduced herein-below :

Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid passed by the learned Commissioner, the petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the very outset stated that he is pressing only the amended prayer No. (v) and confined his argument only to the extent that while passing the impugned order dated 17.02.2022, the learned Appellate Authority (Opposite Party No. 2) has illegally declined to grant the benefit of the Government Order No. 12/2021/1302/94-S.R.-2-2021-700(01)/2015 (Stamp & Registration Section-2) dated 24.12.2021 to the petitioner.

In view of the above, it would be apt to go through the Government Order dated 24.12.2021. For convenience, the relevant portion of the Government Order dated 24.12.2021 is reproduced herein below:

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the aforesaid Government Order came into existence only w.e.f 24.12.2021 while the Appeal No.1174/2021 was filed on 18.11.2021, therefore, he could not at the stage of filing the Appeal, claim the benefit of the said Government Order and after having come to know of the aforesaid Government Order, she preferred an application dated 23.03.2022 before the Collector (opposite party No. 3) and sought the benefit of the said Government Order by expressing her willingness to make good the deficiency in the stamp duty along with the applicable interest, excluding the penalty imposed upon her in the light of the said Government Order. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Collector (Opposite Party No.3) did not consider the said application of the petitioner. It was also contended that, despite the Government Order authorizing the Collector and other competent authorities to decide matters relating to stamp deficiency, the authorities have failed to take a decision thereon.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, on the date of filing of the appeal i.e., 18.11.2021, the Government Order was not in existence and the same came to be enforced only with effect from 24.12.2021 till 31.03.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Government Order dated 24.12.2021 is applicable to all pending cases wherein the parties have moved applications expressing their willingness to deposit the deficient stamp duty and in the pending stamp cases.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that earlier appeal having Case no. 00418/2020, under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, was not dismissed on merits but on the basis of her own application in this regard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Additional Commissioner, while deciding the subsequent appeal, failed to consider and appreciate the true spirit and scope of the Government Order dated 24.12.2021 and dismissed the appeal in the most mechanical manner.

Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents have vehemently opposed the present writ petition. His contention is that the appeal having No. 1174 of 2021 filed on 18.11.2021 was not maintainable as there is no provision under the statute permitting a person to file appeal after the dismissal of the earlier appeal and challenging the same orders.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State argued that Government Order was issued on 24.12.2021 and at that point of time no case of the petitioner was pending and moreover the entire amount determined by the Collector / District Magistrate (Opposite Party No. 3), stood fully paid, the last installment having been deposited on 28.09.2021. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled to claim the benefit of the said Government Order dated 24.12.2021.

Learned counsel for the state further argued that the subsequent appeal preferred by the petitioner, after the earlier appeal had been withdrawn and dismissed as not pressed, carries no legal sanctity and is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 is well-reasoned, legal, valid and warrants no interference by this Court.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

In view of the fact that the petitioner has confined herself to the prayer No. (v) of the Writ petition, therefore, the controversy left to be decided in the present petition is confined as to whether she is entitled to get the benefit of the Government Order dated 24.12.2021.

Since, the petitioner herself has admitted the deficiency in the stamp duty and the registration fees and moreover, in the Counter Affidavit dated 18.05.2022 filed by the State- respondent, it has been categorically stated that all payments were complete on 28.09.2021, therefore there would be no purpose to delve into the controversy as to the correctness of the determination of the stamp duty. Accordingly this Court proceeds to advert to the solitary question as to whether the benefit of the Government order dated 24.12.2021 could be extended to the petitioner.

The record shows that the petitioner preferred the appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 against the said order dated 18.02.2020 which was registered as Case No. 00418/2020. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner moved an application dated 03.03.2021 stating therein that, as per the legal advice, she did not wish to pursue the appeal and wished to deposit the deficient stamp duty. By another application of the same date, the petitioner admitted the deficiency, attributed it to the wrong advice of the sale-deed writer, and prayed for reduction of the penalty and permission to deposit the deficient stamp duty and registration fee. On the basis of the application dated 03.03.2021, the learned Additional Commissioner (Opposite Party No. 2) dismissed the first appeal vide order dated 25.03.2021. These facts are not in dispute.

Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier appeal was not decided on merits is concerned, this Court finds that the order dated 25.03.2021 itself shows that the appeal was dismissed solely because the appellant did not wish to pursue it. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 25.03.2021 in the present writ petition, as the prayers are directed only against the orders dated 17.02.2022 and 18.02.2020. It is further evident from the record that the petitioner had already deposited the amounts through five challans by 28.09.2021. There is also nothing on record to indicate any coercion, duress or undue influence in the submission of the said applications.

However, the petitioner thereafter filed another appeal on 18.11.2021 (Case No. 1174 of 2021) against the same order dated 18.02.2020. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is no provision under the statute permitting the filing of an appeal after the dismissal of the earlier appeal against the same order. The petitioner could also not refer to or show any such provision permitting another appeal after the dismissal of an earlier appeal.

In so far as the legality of the subsequent proceedings purporting to be an appeal under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 again challenging the same very order is concerned, this Court before giving its definite finding feels it appropriate to go through the provisions of Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. For ready reference, Section 56 (1-A) is reproduced herein -

A conjoint reading of the opening and concluding parts of Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 makes the legislative scheme clear. The provision, beginning with the non obstante clause and concluding in unequivocal terms that “the order so passed shall be final” does not contemplate any subsequent appeal.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta versus Collector of Customs (Preventive, Bombay) reported in (1988) 4 SCC 402 has held that:

Reference could be made to decision passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Ramnarain Pvt. Ltd. and Another versus State Trading Corporation of India Ltd reported in (1983) 3 SCC 75, where the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to hold as under:

Further reference could be made to the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. versus Mool Chand Sharma reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Del 794, wherein it was held as under:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asia Industries Private Ltd. versus S.B. Sarup Singh reported in 1965 SCC OnLine SC 366, has held as under:

It is well settled in law that when a right is granted under a Statute, further right of appeal must receive such construction as may emanate from the plain meaning of the words used by it.

The right of appeal being purely a creature of statute, in the absence of any provision permitting a subsequent appeal assailing the same order, the subsequent appeal preferred by the petitioner could not be treated as a validly instituted proceeding as the the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 does not contemplate the institution of a subsequent appeal once the appeal under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has been dismissed.

In view of the above it is safely observed that the subsequent Appeal No.1174/2021 filed under section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was not a legally instituted Appeal and was, rather non-est, more particularly when no liberty was granted or obtained for filing an another appeal afresh.

In view of the facts of the present case, since the petitioner by the applications dated 03.03.2021, had categorically stated that she did not wish to pursue the first appeal, admitted the deficiency in stamp duty, expressed her willingness to deposit the same, and thereafter actually deposited the amount in five installments. Having done so, the petitioner could not have reopened the very same controversy by filing another appeal subsequently. Therefore, the learned Additional Commissioner, vide the impugned order dated 17.02.2022, has rightly held that another appeal, against the same order is not maintainable.

Now, the Court comes to the Government Order dated 24.12.2021, upon which the entire case of the petitioner rests. A perusal of the Government Order dated 24.12.2021, reveals that the Scheme contemplated therein shall apply to the pending stamp cases / stamp appeals / stamp revisions instituted (योजित) prior to the enforcement of the same.

There is no quarrel with the proposition that the Government Order applies to pending cases. Whereas, in the present case the proceedings before the Collector / District Magistrate had already been concluded vide order dated 18.02.2020, and the petitioner's appeal against the same stood dismissed on 25.03.2021 i.e., prior to the issuance of the Government Order dated 24.12.2021. The only proceeding that is said to be pending on 24.12.2021 was a subsequently filed appeal which for the reasons recorded herein above, was not a validly instituted proceeding in the eyes of law. Thus, the benefit of the scheme under the Government Order dated 24.12.2021 was not available to the petitioner.

In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application dated 23.03.2022 pending before the Collector / District Magistrate (Opposite Party No. 3), has not been considered, and that the benefit of the Government Order dated 24.12.2021 has not been extended to her is concerned, the same is bereft of merit having no substance as there was no validly instituted stamp case / stamp appeal / stamp revision by or against the petitioner pending at the time of enforcement of the Government order dated 24.12.2021.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda (Opposite Party No. 2) in Appeal having Case No. 1174 of 2021 and the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned Collector / District Magistrate, Gonda (Opposite Party No. 3) in Case No. 00825/2019, do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Before parting with, this Court appreciates the sincere assistance and research by Mr. Rajat Srivastava, Research Associate and Ms. Mizana Kabeer, Law Intern in finding out the relevant case laws applicable in the present case.