ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pankaj Mithal, J.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
& Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Addl. Commissioner (Admn.)
& Ors. —Respondents
CMWP No. 1388 of 2012
Decided on 20.3.2012
Result: Petition allowed.
Pankaj Mithal, J.— Who is liable to pay the deficient stamp duty in connection with the instrument in question which is a lease deed executed on 31.10.2010 by the petitioner U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad in favour of respondent No. 3 is the primary question which has cropped up in this writ petition.
2. Petitioner U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad developed scheme No.1 Keshavpuram, Kalyanpur in Kanpur Nagar. In the said scheme a commercial plot No. GC 22/C16 area 49.12 sq. meter was allotted by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 on 6.6.2002.
3. It appears that some dispute arose between the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner in connection with allotment of the aforesaid plot whereupon respondent No. 3 lodged a complaint before the District Consumer forum. The complaint was decided on 11.5.2004 and the petitioner was directed to refund the entire amount deposited by respondent No. 3 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
4. The aforesaid order was challenged both by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 by separate appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and that of respondent No. 3 was allowed by a common judgment and order dated 3.4.2008. The petitioner was directed to inform the balance amount to be paid by respondent No. 3 in connection with above plot and to execute the sale deed/lease deed by 31.7.2008. The aforesaid decision was upheld in revision by the National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 18.12.2008. The matter was thereafter taken to the Supreme Court by means of SLP No. 9450 of 2009 decided on 14.9.2010 and the following directions were issued:
“(i) The petitioner shall handover vacant possession of the plot to the respondent within seven days from today.
(ii) Within two weeks, the petitioner shall inform the respondent about the total stamp duty payable by him as on 31.7.2008 in terms of the order passed by the State Commission.
(iii) Within next two weeks, the respondent shall deposit the requisite stamp papers and also complete other paper formalities.
(iv) Within a further period of two weeks, the petitioner shall execute the sale-deed in favour of the respondent and get the same registered.”
5. In pursuance to the above, the instrument in question was executed on 13.10.2010 and it was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar on 29.12.2010. The Sub-Registrar submitted report on 31.12.2010 that on the said instrument stamp duty of Rs.85,120 is payable whereas only Rs.20,860 has been paid and there is deficiency of Rs.64,260 in payment of stamp duty. The petitioner in the aforesaid proceedings brought on record the decision of the Supreme Court dated 14.9.2010 and that of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum dated 3.4.2008 and that it had informed respondent No. 3 of the stamp duty of Rs.28,860/- on the market value of plot as on 31.7.2008. Respondent No. 3 filed objections stating that in view of the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 03.04.2008 stamp duty as on 31.7.2008 was payable as there was a direction to the petitioner to execute the sale-deed by the aforesaid date. Pending the aforesaid proceedings, respondent No. 3 filed miscellaneous application which was given I.A. No.2 of 2011 in the above SLP before the Supreme Court and prayed for a direction upon the petitioner to bear the deferential stamp duty payable on the sale-deed for registration as the Sub-Registrar is demanding additional stamp duty over and above Rs. 20,860 from the respondent No. 3 and is not registering the same for non-payment of it. The said lA was rejected by the Supreme Court vide order dated 29.8.2011 which is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Thereafter, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Kanpur Nagar under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act passed one of the impugned orders dated 21.06.2011 determining deficiency in the stamp duty on the above instrument to be Rs.64,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.