Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1965 DIGILAW 502 (ALL)

Manni Singh v. State of U. P.

1965-11-26

D.D.SETH

body1965
ORDER D.D. Seth, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and arises out of the following circumstances. 2. The Distt. Board Banda, now Antarim Zila Parishad, let out by public auction tolls of Rajapur Ghat public ferry to the Petitioner for five years from 1.10.1954 to 30.9.1959 on an yearly rent of Rs. 20,600/-. On 1.5.1956 the Distt, Board asked the Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,236/ as value of the stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act II of 1899) (hereinafter called the Act). This duty was to be fixed to the deed of lease which. Was to be executed by the State Govt. The Petitioner protested against the demand, thereupon, the Distt. Board threatened the Petitioner with proceedings for realisation of the amount arrears of land revenue and also with prosecution. The Petitioner then made an application to the Collector u/s 31 of the Act for adjudication of proper stamp duty leviable on the rent of lease. As required by Section 31(2) of the Act the Petitioner also filed an abstract of the instrument on a plain water marked paper under his signature. The Collector determined the stamp duty as Rs. 504/-. On the receipt of the notice of this adjudication^ the Collector the Petitioner paid the sum of Rs. 504/- in general stamps to the Distt. Board. These stamps were attached to the form of the deed of lease which had already been submitted by the Petitioner. The Distt. Board, on receipt of the deed of lease from the Commissioner Jhansi Division did not hand it over to the Petitioner but kept it with it and subsequently sent the same to the Board of Revenue at Allahabad. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the petition that neither the Distt. Magistrate, Banda nor the Board of Revenue at Allahabad issued any notice to the Petitioner and he, therefore, never knew that any proceedings were going on in regard to the stamp duty payable on the deed of lease before the Board of Revenue. The Petitioner also could not know that the deed of lease had been sent to the Board of Revenue. On l5.12.1959, the Junior Secretary, Board of Revenue, sent a letter to the Collector of Banda informing him that the deed of lease was deficiently stamped by Rs. The Petitioner also could not know that the deed of lease had been sent to the Board of Revenue. On l5.12.1959, the Junior Secretary, Board of Revenue, sent a letter to the Collector of Banda informing him that the deed of lease was deficiently stamped by Rs. 1,968/-and that this amount may be recovered immediately from the lessee and the document be certified thereafter. A copy of this letter was sent to the Antarim Zila Parishad, Banda which had come into existence by that time. The Antarim Zila Parishad, thereupon, by a letter dt. 22.1.1961, demanded the sum of Rs. 1,968/- from the Petitioner as deficiency of stamp duty on the deed of lease. The Petitioner denied his liability to pay this amount. The Collector of Banda, who is also the President of the Antarim Zila Parishad, then sent an order to the Tahsildar Banda to realise Rs. 1,968/- from the Petitioner as arrears of land revenue and in pursuance of that order the Qurk Amin was directed to realise the amount. The Petitioner, therefore, by means of this petition, challenges the direction of the Board of Revenue contained in the letter of the Junior Secretary dt. 15.12.1959 and prays that the same be quashed. It is also prayed that orders may be issued restraining the opposite parties from taking any proceedings for the recovery of Rs. 1,968/- or any other sum as deficiency of stamp duty from the Petitioner. 3. Two counter affidavits have been filed by Nirbho Saran, Stamp Clerk, Collectorate, Banda and Shyam Sunder, Head clerk, PWD Section, Antarim Zila Parishad, Banda. The Petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavits. 4. I have heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhry, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Lakshmi Saran, the learned Counsel appearing for the Antarim Zila Parishad and Sri H.P. Gupta, the learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 5. If is urged by Sri V.K.S. Chaudhry that there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record in the letter dated 15.12.1959 addressed to the Collector, Banda by the Junior Secretary, Board of Revenue, inasmuch as the deed of lease was leviable Under Article 35(a)(ii) contained in Schedule I-B of the Act and not under Article 35(b) of that Schedule. Sri V. K.S. Chaudhry further submitted that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to give a direction to the Collector for the realisation of the deficiency of stamp duty and also to set aside the order of the Collector passed u/s 31 of the Act and the direction contained in the letter of the Junior Secretary dated 15.12.1959 is without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel further submitted that the adjudication of the Collector u/s 31 of the Act was final and conclusive. It is further submitted that the absence of a certificate by the Collector as required u/s 32 of the Act does not affect the adjudication by the Collector and that the Board of Revenue violated the principles of natural justice in giving the direction to the Collector without issuing any notice to the Petitioner and without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to be heard. 6. Sri H.P. Gupta, the learned (sic) Standing, Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the Petitioner had an alternative remedy and could file an application in the Board of Revenue to make a reference to the High Court u/s 57 of the Act and further that since there was no endorsement by the Collector u/s 32 there was no properly stamped deed and action for impounding the document by the Collector, could be taken u/s 33 and a reference could be made to the Board of Revenue u/s 56 of the Act. Sri H.P. Gupta further contended that the matter (ell Under Article 35 (b) of Schedule IB of the Act and not Under Article 35(a)(ii) of the Schedule. 7. In paragraph 12 of the affidavit accompanying the petition it has been stated that the Collector of Banda, who is also the President of the Antarim Zila Parishad, Banda sent an order to the Tahsildar of Banda for recovery of Rs. 1,968/- as arrears of land revenue from the Petitioner and in pursuance df that Order the Tahsildar directed the Qurk Amin to realise the aforesaid amount from the Petitioner. The Qurk Amin also threatened the Petitioner with arrest and with attachment of his- property if the Petitioner did not pay the Amount of Rs. 1,698/-. Paragraph 12 of the affidavit has been admitted to be correct in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The Qurk Amin also threatened the Petitioner with arrest and with attachment of his- property if the Petitioner did not pay the Amount of Rs. 1,698/-. Paragraph 12 of the affidavit has been admitted to be correct in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. It is, therefore clear that coercive measures are being taken by the opposite parties against the Petitioners. Under these circumstances this Court can exercise, at the instance of an aggrieved party, its power of issuing a writ of certiorari Under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true that normally this Court will not issue a writ where there is an alternative remedy but there is no absolute bar to entertaining writ petitions and in issuing a writ even when there are alternative remedies when in the opinion of this Court those alternative remedies are not effective, speedy, adequate or sufficient. Where coercive measures are threatened against a Petitioner this Court should interfere Under Article 226 of the Constitution instead not asking the Petitioner to move the Board of Revenue either to revise its order or to make a reference to this Court. See Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Another, AIR 1956 Mad 454 Act and not Under Article 35(b) of thus Schedule. It is stated, in the letter dated 15-12-1959 sent to the Collector, Banda by the Junior Secretary, Board of Revenue thus: I am directed to invite- your attention to your letter No. 690/V-28, dated 3-12-1958 to the President, District Board, Banda, intimating that the stamp duty payable on tact above lease deed was Rs. 504/-, only and to say that as the lease was granted for lump sum of Rs. 1,03,000/- and not on annual rental basis, duty was payable Under Article 35(b) of the Stamp Act which worked out to Rs. 2,472/-. Article 35(b) of Schedule I-B of the Act reads as follows: Where the lease is granted for a fine or premium or for money advanced and where no rent is fixed. In the instant case the form of the lease deed shows that the lease was to be for a period of five years and the amount of rent was to be paid by instalments each month starting from 1-10-1954 and ending with 1-9-1959. Annexure 'A' to the petition is an extract "Ishtihar Neelam babat Ghat". In the instant case the form of the lease deed shows that the lease was to be for a period of five years and the amount of rent was to be paid by instalments each month starting from 1-10-1954 and ending with 1-9-1959. Annexure 'A' to the petition is an extract "Ishtihar Neelam babat Ghat". Item No. 8 of this extract used the words "salana lagan." Item No. 17 says: Manzuri theka hone ke pahle ek sal ke lagan ka zar chacharum dakhil karne ke bad yadi Board chahega to baqi lagan ke wasul hone ke babat (sic) kiat ka zamanat thekedar kodeni hogi. 8. All this shows that the amount of rent was fixed and reserved. The amount fixed for payment was not for a tine or a premium or for money advanced. The deed of lease, therefore, is not covered by Article 35(b) of Schedule I-B of the Act. Article 35(a)(ii) of Schedule I-B reads thus: (a) where by such lease the rent is fixed and no premium is paid or delivered- (i)... (ii) where the lease purports to be for a term exceeding one year, but not exceeding five years; 9. In view of my decision on the first submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner it is not necessary to deal with the other points raised by him. 10. The result, therefore, is that this petition is allowed with costs and the direction contained in the letter dated 15.12.1959, from the Junior Secretary, Board of Revenue to the Collector of Banda is quashed. The opposite parties are restrained from taking any proceedings for the recovery of Rs. 1,968/- or any other amount as alleged deficiency of stamp duty in respect of lease deed of Rajapur Ghat public ferry for the years 1954-1959 executed by the State Government in favour of the Petitioner.