SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Jhk) 329

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Baleshwar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This application has been referred by petitioners against the orders dated 23.10.1999 passed in Certificate Case No. 279/98-99 and order dated 30.10.1999 passed in Certificate Case No. 280/98-99 whereby and whereunder the respondent- District Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh directed the petitioners to deposit the amount, in question, in lieu of less Court-fee stamp made for registered deeds.

2. The case of the petitioner is that they purchased two sets of land from one Deoki Devi, vide two registered deed Nos. 4327 and 4317, dated 21.4.1992 duly registered by the District Sub-registrar, Hazaribagh, for an area mentioned in the deeds. In the year 1996, when it came to the notice of the vendor and vendees, certain mistake in respect to plots made correction in 1992 registered deeds through two separate registered deeds executed on 8.11.1996.

The Registrar. Registration Officer, Hazaribagh, vide letter dated 6.2.1997 while referred the subsequent registered deeds dated 8.11.1996, intimated the petitioners that th(sic) are liable to pay more stamp duty/registration fee, the valuation having shown Rs. 9,000/- and registration fee having enhanced since promulga















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top