Back
2019 Supreme(All) 941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saral Srivastava, J.
Sushil Kumar Jain - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondent
Writ C No. 16942 of 2019, 16951 of 2019, 16956 of 2019, 16960 of 2019
Decided On : 02-08-2019
Ashish Kumar Singh, Adv., Rahul Jain, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 47-A and 57 (1) – Whether a stranger or third party can be said to be an aggrieved person by an order passed by competent authority and has locus- standi to maintain an application in the context of word 'otherwise coming to its notice and whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is under obligation to make reference to the High Court – Appeal – Held, The petitioner even otherwise is not a bona-fide litigant for the reason that some family dispute is pending between the parties, and the petitioner as is evident from the pleadings in the writ petition has obtained an ex-parte decree of injunction – Thus, it is evident that the petitioner in order to espouse his personal cause, had preferred the appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector (Stamp)/Collector and filed an application under Section 57 of the Act, 1899 for reference to the High Court – Since, the petitioner is not a bona fide litigant and in fact has opted the remedy of appeal in order to settle his personal score, therefore, it is not a fit case of exercise of extra ordinary power by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Thus, in the light of the above observations and discussions, all the four writ petitions are not maintainable – Petition dismissed. [Paras 33 and 34]
Facts of the case:
The issue involved in the bunch of petition is as to whether a stranger or third party can be said to be an aggrieved person by an order passed by competent authority in a proceeding under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1899') and has locus- standi to maintain an application under Section 57 of the Act, 1899 in the context of word 'otherwise coming to its notice' used in Section 57 (1) of the Act, 1899, and on such an application being filed, whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is under obligation to make reference to the High Court.
Findings of the case:
The petitioner even otherwise is not a bona-fide litigant for the reason that some family dispute is pending between the parties, and the petitioner as is evident from the pleadings in the writ petition has obtained an ex-parte decree of injunction – Thus, it is evident that the petitioner in order to espouse his personal cause, had preferred the appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector (Stamp)/Collector and filed an application under Section 57 of the Act, 1899 for reference to the High Court – Since, the petitioner is not a bona fide litigant and in fact has opted the remedy of appeal in order to settle his personal score, therefore, it is not a fit case of exercise of extra ordinary power by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Thus, in the light of the above observations and discussions, all the four writ petitions are not maintainable.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Saral Srivastava, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The issue involved in the bunch of petition is as to whether a stranger or third party can be said to be an aggrieved person by an order passed by competent authority in a proceeding under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1899') and has locus- standi to maintain an application under Section 57 of the Act, 1899 in the context of word 'otherwise coming to its notice' used in Section 57 (1) of the Act, 1899, and on such an application being filed, whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is under obligation to make reference to the High Court.
3. For the convenience, the facts are delineated from Writ - C No. 16942 of 2019.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and in possession of Khasra No.2765 (1 bigha 3 biswa), 2767 (6 bigha 1 biswa and 1 kothi), 2768 (3 biswa), 2769 (4 biswa), 2770 (3 bigha 5 biswa) in total 10 bigha and 17 biswa or 27439.65 square meters of land. One Mr. Deep Chand Jain, Vijai Kumar Jain (S/o Deep Chand Jain), Gopi Chand Jain and Akshay Kumar Jain (S/o Gopi Chand Jain) also had share in the aforesaid khasra. According to the petitioner, a family settlement was entered into between the parties on 08.05.1977 in which 7941.06 square meter of the land in the south came to the share of Deep Chand Jain, Vijay Kumar Jain, Gopi Chand Jain, and Akshay Kumar Jain. After the death of Deep Chand Jain and Vijay Kumar Jain, the aforesaid portion was inherited by Smt. Vaishalya Jain widow of late Vijay Kumar Jain and his sons Atul Kumar and Sanjay Jain. The petitioner was given 19498.60 square meter in the north of the aforesaid khasra as per the settlement.
5. The further case of the petitioner is that Smt. Vaishalya Jain and her son after long span of time of family settlement expressed their desire that they are entitled to more share in the aforesaid plots and Smt. Vaishalya Jain and Sanjay Jain illegally without having any title sold an area of 0.2386 hectare in favour of respondent no.3 Ravindra Kumar Tyagi by registered sale deed executed on 21.07.2015 which in fact was given to the petitioner under family settlement deed dated 08.05.1977.
6. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it appears that petitioner has obtained an exparte decree of injunction dated 28.04.2017 with respect to the land for which sale deed has been executed, and the said decree has been put in execution by filing Case No. 615 of 2015.
7. It transpires from the record that a case No. 225 of 2017-18 (computerized No. D-2017115203148) was registered on the report of sub-Registrar dated 11.11.2016 for deficiency of stamp duty against respondent no.3. The Assistant Collector (Stamp)/Collector (Stamp), Meerut determined the stamp deficiency at Rs.50,290/- by order dated 02.11.2018 on the basis of report dated 21.12.2017 submitted by Assistant Inspector General Registration, Meerut, .
8. The respondent no.3 feeling aggrieved by order dated 02.11.2018 passed by Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Meerut in Case No. 225 of 2017-18 (computerized No. D-2017115203148) preferred statutory appeal before Deputy Commissioner (Stamp) Meerut Division, Meerut which was numbered as Case No. 02385 of 2018 (computerized no. C201811000002385).
9. The petitioner, though, was not a party before the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Meerut preferred statutory appeal No.C201911000000162 challenging the order dated 02.11.2018 in Case No. 225 of 2017-18 (computerized No. D-2017115203148) wherein he contended that respondent no.3 in collusion with respondents authorities have evaded huge stamp duty. The petitioner in the said appeal also preferred an application in the month of March, 2019 under Section 57 of the Act, 1899 seeking reference to the High Court on the following questions:-
^^1- D;k ftykf/kdkjh egksn; }kjk fu/kkZfjr lfdZy jsV vadu 9000@& :i;s izfr oxZ ehVj gksus ds i'pkr lc jftLVªkj esjB dks mlls de nj ij LVkEi dh xM+uk djus dk vf/kdk
