Legal representatives of a defaulter are liable for recovery of dues only to the extent of inherited property, with the court emphasizing the need for a proper inquiry into the extent of liability before coercive actions are taken.

JUDGMENT :

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

THE ISSUE INVOLVED:- RECOVERY FROM LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEFAULTER UNDER INDIAN STAMP ACT, 1899

1. Heard Shri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Shatakshi Shukla, Advocate appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition raises significant questions in relation to nature, validity and extent of recovery proceedings against legal representatives of a person, who died pending proceedings under Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (‘the Stamp Act’). This issue revolves around consideration of various provisions from different enactments, as would be discussed.

Brief facts

3. The petitioners Raj Kumar Verma and Deepak Soni are sons of late Rakesh Kumar Verma. Their father purchased agricultural plots by registered sale deeds in the year 2020. Proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act were initiated against petitioners’ father and by an order dated 12.05.2022, the Additional District Magistrate, (Finance and Revenue), Agra (‘ADM’) imposed deficiency and penalty upon the purchaser, the quantum is immaterial.

4. The ADM, in pursuance of order dated 12.05.2022, sent recovery certificate bearing D.R. No.213/22 in the year 2022 itself to the Collector/Tehsildar, Agra for recovery of the amount of Rs. 16,55,150/- from the petitioners’ father.

5. Challenging the order dated 12.05.2022, the petitioners’ father preferred a stamp revision before the Commissioner. Pending revision, he died and the petitioners got themselves substituted as revisionists in the memo thereof. They pressed their revision on merits, however, the same ended in terms of dismissal by an order dated 29.08.2025. Consequently, the recovery proceedings initiated in 2022 stood revived.

6. This petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioners for recovering the amount in pursuance of the order dated 12.05.2022 and recovery certificate bearing D.R. No.213/22 and also not to attach or sale the personal properties of the petitioners.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners

7. Learned Senior Counsel has made submissions that though finality attached to the levy is neither being disputed nor is being challenged, the petitioners, being sons of the purchaser, cannot be subjected to coercive action in furtherance of recovery certificate. Submission is that since the petitioners have not received any movable or immovable property or cash or ornaments etc. from their father, to which effect, separate affidavits have also been filed by both the petitioners along with the present writ petition, they are not liable to pay any amount.

8. It is further submitted that sale deeds have been declared as null and void in terms of a decree dated 28.10.2024 passed by the civil court in Original Suit No.896 of 2022 (Rakesh Kumar Verma v. Geeta Shukla and others) and, therefore, since no property stood transferred by the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners’ father as the same have been declared as null and void, even that property has not been succeeded by the petitioners.

9. Further submission has been made that if the respondents are inclined to recover sums covered by the recovery certificate, they may undertake the exercise either by sale of the property covered by the sale deeds or by personal properties and funds of their late father but, under no circumstances, the pet