Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1984 (ALL)

Rajendra Singh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2017-08-25

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : B. Amit Sthalekar, J. Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 377927 of 2016 dated 05.12.2016 for recall of the order dated 25.11.2016 is taken up. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the application. Sufficient ground has been made out. 2. The restoration application is allowed and the order dated 25.11.2016 is recalled. The case is restored to its original number. 3. Heard Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. The petitioner is seeking quashing of recovery certificate dated 26.10.2013 as well as order dated 28.06.2013 passed in Stamp Case No. 145 of 2006-07 (State v. Chhunnan Ahmad). 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased lease hold rights with respect to the property in question bearing No. H-199, Sector Gamma-2, Greater Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. This property according to him was purchased from one Ashok Kumar Dua on 09.05.2008 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 24 lacs. It is also stated that permission for transfer of the property to the petitioner was also granted by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vide Memorandum dated 06.05.2008. It is also stated that at some point of time, lease hold rights of the property were transferred by one Parveen Kumar Solanki in favour of one Chhunnan Ahmad resident of 44-A-J Extension, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi on 19.10.2004 for a total consideration of Rs. 5,64,000/-. Thereafter, it was sold in favour of Udai Anand and Ujwal Anand vide transfer deed dated 14.11.2005. Udai Anand and Ujwal Anand executed an agreement to sell in favour of one Ashok Kumar Dua from whom the petitioner acquired the property. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings under section 47A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act, 1899) were initiated against Chunnan Ahmad and the title of Stamp Suit is Stamp Suit No. 145 of 2006-07 (State of U.P. v. Chunnan Ahmad). It is stated that the order passed therein by the Stamp Collector/District Collector (Stamp)/District Magistrate dated 28.06.2013 was an ex-parte order since no notice had been issued to the petitioner and he had not been given any opportunity to participate in the proceedings. 6. The petitioner filed objection (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) praying that the order dated 28.06.2013 may be set aside and he may be given an opportunity of being heard. 6. The petitioner filed objection (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) praying that the order dated 28.06.2013 may be set aside and he may be given an opportunity of being heard. It is stated that this application is still pending and no order has been passed. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-State and in para 6 thereof it is stated that the Collector, Gautam Buddha Nagar had issued a notice on the address of the petitioner mentioned in the deed but the petitioner did not cooperate in the disposal of the stamp case. Neither the date of the notice has been mentioned nor the copy of the notice has been filed along with the counter affidavit. It is also not stated categorically whether the notice was sent in the name of the petitioner or in the name of Chunnan Ahmad. There is no categorical averment in the counter affidavit that notice was issued to the petitioner. This shows that in fact notice must have been issued at the address mentioned in the deed but in the name of Chunnan Ahmad since entire stamp case has proceeded against Chunnan Ahmad. 8. Be that as it may, since the petitioner's objection is still pending before the Stamp Authority, the impugned recovery certificate dated 26.10.2013 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. 9. The matter is remitted to the Collector (Stamp)/District Magistrate-respondent no. 2 to reconsider the same and pass fresh order in accordance with law after fixing a date and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Order dated 28.06.2013 shall be subject to any final order which may be passed by respondent no. 2.