Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 734 (ALL)

SARANSH SHARMA v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-03-09

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been filed today, which are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishal Tandon, learned standing counsel for the State respondents. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that by order dated 27.12.2014 in Stamp Case No. 84 of 2013-14 (Computerized Case No. D2013015000171) passed by the respondent No. 3 under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the Act’) with respect to Instrument No. 1651 of 2013 relating to sale of certain plots of Khatauni Khata No. 214 of village Mant Raja Bangar, Tehsil Mant, District Mathura, deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 4,69,950/- was determined and a penalty of Rs. 18,71,800/- was imposed. Interest was also demanded at the prescribed rates. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed a Revision No. 74 of 2015 alongwith a stay application under Section 56 of the Act before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. An order dated 26.2.2015 was passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra on the stay application of the petitioner providing that the recovery for 30 days shall remain stayed. It appears that the said interim order was not extended. According to the petitioner, the Tehsil Authorities recovered the amount of arrears and after recovery deposited it through challans as under: Sl.No. Receipt No. and Date Challan No. and date Amount (Rs.) 1 034747, dt.14.2.2015 M125043, dt.14.2.2015, SBI Rs. 4,12,067/- 2 774245, dt.14.2.2015 M124913, dt.14.2.2015, SBI Rs. 4,23,933/- 3 034780, dt. 19.7.2015 M3001, dt.20.7.2015, SBI Rs. 7,95,000/- 4 774272, dt.19.7.2015 3002, dt.20.7.2015, SBI Rs. 7,00,000/- 5 897005, dt.19.7.2015 30003, dt.20.7.2015 Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Rs.25,31,000/- 4. The aforesaid recovery made by Collector/Tehsil authorities, fully satisfied the arrears against the petitioner representing the principal amount of deficiency of stamp duty, penalty and interest. Thus, by 20th July, 2015, the entire demand including penalty and interest created under the order in original dated 27.12.2014 passed by the A.D.M. (F/R), Mathura was fully recovered and there remained no arrears against the petitioner. 5. Subsequently, a compounding scheme by G.O. No. 24/2015/1063/94/LVk0fu0 -2015-700(01)/2015 dated 4.11.2015; was brought by the State Government to bring down litigation and to realise arrears. The whole object of the scheme, as evident from its paragraphs-2 and 3, was to receive the un-recovered deficient stamp duty alongwith interest and token penalty of Rs. 5. Subsequently, a compounding scheme by G.O. No. 24/2015/1063/94/LVk0fu0 -2015-700(01)/2015 dated 4.11.2015; was brought by the State Government to bring down litigation and to realise arrears. The whole object of the scheme, as evident from its paragraphs-2 and 3, was to receive the un-recovered deficient stamp duty alongwith interest and token penalty of Rs. 10/- and on deposit of such amount under the aforesaid compounding scheme dated 4.11.2015 by the person against whom arrears are existing, the balance amount of penalty was to be waived off. The whole object of the scheme, as evident from its paragraphs-2 and 3, was to receive the un-recovered deficient stamp duty alongwith interest and token penalty of Rs. 10/- and on deposit of such amount under the aforesaid compounding scheme dated 4.11.2015 by the person against whom arrears are existing, the balance amount of penalty was to be waived off. The compounding scheme dated 4.11.2015 is reproduced below: la[;k&24@2015@1063@94@LVk0fu0&2015&700¼01½@2015 izs"kd] vfuy dqekj] izeq[k lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] 1- egkfujh{kd fucU/ku] mRrj izns'k y[kuÅA 2- leLr e.Myk;qDr] mRrj izns'kA 3- leLr ftykf/kdkjh] mRrj izns'kA LVkEi ,oa jftLVsª'ku y[kuÅ vuqHkkx&2 fnukad 04 uoEcj] 2015 fo"k;%& LVkEi deh ds oknksa dh lek/kku ;kstuk egksn;] vki voxr gSa fd tuin Lrj ij LVkEi dysDVjksa ;Fkk ftykf/kdkjh] vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼foRr ,oa jktLo½] lgk;d vk;qDr LVkEi rFkk mi&ftykf/kdkfj;ksa ds U;k;ky;ksa esa dkQh la[;k esa LVkEi vf/kfu;e] 1899 dh /kkjk&33 o 47,¼1½ ,oa 47,¼3½ ds vUrxZr LVkEiokn ;ksftr gS] ftuesa jkT; ljdkj dh jktLo {kfr dk fcUnq fufgr gSA bu oknksa ds Rofjr xfr ls fuLrkj.k ls tgkW jkT; dks bafxr LVkEi deh ds lkis{k /kujkf'k 'kh?kz izkIr gks ldsxh] ogha lacaf/kr i{kdkjksa dks Hkh U;k; esa foyEc ds dkj.k c<+us okyh C;kt dh ns;rk ls jkgr izkIr gksxhA 2- izns'k Lrj ij LVkEi oknksa ds fuLrkj.k dh fo"kn foospuk ls ;g rF; izdk'k esa vk;k gS fd bu oknksa ds fu.kZ; esa cgq/kk vrkfdZd ,oa fcuk lE;d vk/kkj ds vR;f/kd vFkZ&n.M vkjksfir fd;k tkrk gS] ftlls okndkfj;ksa n~okjk LVkEi vioapu esa fufgr /kujkf'k u tek dj vFkZn.M lekIr djkus gsrq vihy@fjV ;ksftr dh tkrh gSA bl dkj.k jkT; ljdkj dks LVkEi deh dh ewy /kujkf'k Hkh le; ls izkIr ugha gks ikrh gS ,oa izdj.k vuko';d :i ls eqdnesackth esa my> tkrk gSA 3- LVkEi oknksa ds Rofjr fuLrkj.k ds fy,] mlesa fufgr LVkEi deh dh /kujkf'k dks 'kh?kzkfr'kh?kz izkIr djus ds fy, rFkk tu&lkekU dks vf/kdkf/kd lqfo/kk iznku djus ds mn~ns'; ls 'kklu n~okjk lE;d fopkjksijkar LVkEi deh ds oknksa dh ,d lek/kku ;kstuk ykxw fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA mDr ;kstuk fuEuor~ fdz;kfUor dh tk;sxh % ¼1½ lHkh U;k;ky;ksa ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh vius U;k;ky; esa yfEcr leLr LVkEioknksa esa i{kdkjksa dks bl i= ds lkFk layXu izk:i ij ,d uksfVl izsf"kr djsaxs] ftlls okn ds lHkh lEcfU/kr i{kdkjksa dks bl ;kstuk dk lE;d~ Kku gks tk,A ¼2½ fnukad 31-10-2015 rd ;ksftr LVkEi deh ds fdlh Hkh okn esa ;fn i{kdkj lanHkZ.k vk[;k esa bafxr LVkEi de dh /kujkf'k dks fu;ekuqlkj ns; C;kt ds lkFk vnk djus dks bPNqd gS] rks i{kdkj n~okjk lEcfU/kr U;k;ky; esa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds le{k bl vk'k; dk izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k tk;sxkA ¼3½ lacaf/kr U;k;ky; ds ihBklhu vfèkdkjh] ,sls izkFkZuk&i= ds izkIr gksrs gh lEcfU/kr okn esa ,d i{k ds vUnj frfFk fu;r djrs gq, ¼vko';drk gksus ij iwoZ fu;r frfFk dks la'kksfèkr djrs gq,½ blh vof/k esa lanHkZ.k vk[;k esa bafxr LVkEi deh dh /kujkf'k dh iqf"V gsrq vko';d dk;Zokgh djsaxsA ¼4½ lanHkZ.k vk[;k esa bafxr LVkEi deh dh iqf"V ds mijkUr U;k;ky; mDr fu;r frfFk dks i{kdkj dks iqf"V dh x;h LVkEi deh dh èkujkf'k rFkk C;kt ,oa :0 10 ds Vksdu vFkZn.M dh /kujkf'k dks fu;ekuqlkj ,d lIrkg esa dks"kkxkj ds en la[;k&0030 LVkEi ,oa jftLVsª'ku esa tek djus gsrq voxr djk;saxsA ¼5½ iz'uxr okn esa mDr lek/kku ;kstuk ds vUrxZr fofuf'pr dh x;h /kujkf'k tek djk;s tkus dh jlhn ds lkFk izkFkZuk&i= izkIr gksus ij dks"kkxkj ls tek /kujkf'k dh iqf"V U;k;ky; ds deZpkjh n~okjk ,d lIrkg ds vUnj vxyh frfFk fu;r djds i=koyh ij vk[;k izLrqr dh tk;sxhA ¼6½ rRi'pkr U;k;ky; ds ihBklhu vfèkdkjh LVkEi deh ,oa C;kt dh /kujkf'k e; vFkZn.M ds dks"kkxkj esa tek djk;s tkus dh iqf"V ds izek.k Lo:i izLrqr jlhn ds n`f"Vxr okn dks :0 10 ek= ds Vksdu vFkZ&n.M ds lkFk fuLrkfjr dj nsaxsA ¼7½ bl izdkj deh dh /kujkf'k ,oa fu;ekuqlkj ns; C;kt dh /kujkf'k dh vnk;xh ds mijkUr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh n~okjk izys[k ij LVkEi vf/kfu;e] 1899 dh /kkjk&42 ds vUrxZr izek.k&i= vafdr djus ds lkFk gh ;g okn LVkEi izHkk;Zrk ds lEcU/k esa vfUre :i ls fuLrkfjr ekuk tk;sxkA ¼8½ ;g lek/kku ;kstuk vxys 4 ekg ¼uoEcj] fnlEcj 2015] tuojh ,oa Qjojh 2016½ dh vof/k rd izHkkoh jgsxhA fdlh Hkh i{kdkj n~okjk bl vof/k esa] vFkkZr~ 29 Qjojh] 2016 ls iwoZ iqf"V dh xbZ LVkEi deh dh èkujkf'k fu;ekuqlkj ns; C;kt ,oa :0 10 ds Vksdu vFkZ&n.M ds lkFk tek djkus ij mls bldk ykHk izkIr gksxkA 4- mijksDr ;kstuk ds vUrxZr U;k;ky; ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dks i{kdkj n~okjk izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;s tkus ds ,d ekg ds vUnj okn dk vafre :i ls fuLrkj.k djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 5- mijksDr ;kstuk dks tuin Lrj ij foKfIr ds ek/;e ls rFkk fofHkUu dk;kZy;ksa ,oa U;k;ky;ksa esa lwpukiVksa ij Li"V lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij rFkk vU; ek/;eksa ls foLr`r izpkj&izlkj fd;k tk;] ftlls tks i{kdkj lanHkZ.k vk[;k esa bafxr LVkEi deh dks nsdj vius okn fuLrkj.k djkus dk bPNqd gks mUgsa fu;r vof/k esa ;g volj izkIr gks ldsA 6- leLr ftykf/kdkjh] ;g lqfuf'pr djsaxs fd muds tuin ds lHkh dysDVj LVkEi ds U;k;ky;ksa esa yfEcr LVkEioknksa esa ,slk dksbZ izdj.k fuLrkj.k gsrq vo'ks"k ugha gS] ftlesa i{kdkj ds n~okjk bafxr LVkEi deh dks tek djkrs gq, vius okn ds fuLrkj.k dk izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq mldk okn fuLrkfjr ugha fd;k x;k gSA 7- bl vof/k esa mDr lek/kku ;kstuk ds vUrxZr fuLrkfjr izdj.kksa ds lanHkZ esa izR;sd ftykf/kdkjh] vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼fo0@jk0½ ,oa lgk;d vk;qDr LVkEi fuLrkfjr izdj.kksa dh la[;k ,oa mlesa vkjksfir ,oa olwy dh x;h LVkEi deh dk fooj.k vk;qDr LVkEi] mRrj izns'k dks miyC/k djk;saxsA layXu& uksfVl dk izk:i Hkonh;] ¼vfuy dqekj½ izeq[k lfpoA la[;k ,oa fnukad mijksDrkuqlkj izfrfyfi& fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"krA 1& leLr vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼fo0,oa jk0½] mRrj izns'kA 2& leLr mi egkfujh{kd] fucUèku@mik;qDr LVkEi] mRrj izns'kA 3& leLr lgk;d egkfujh{kd fucUèku@lgk;d vk;qDr LVkEi] mRrj izns'kA ¼lq/khUnz dqekj½ mi lfpoA izk:i&1 U;k;ky; &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ¼LVkEi&okn lek/kku ;kstuk ds varxZr½ uksfVl LVkEi okn la[;k &&&&&&o"kZ &&&&&&&&&&&&Hkk0LVk0vf/k0 dh /kkjk&33@/kkjk&47,] okn ds i{kdkj &&&&&&&&&&&& Jh&&&&&&&&&&&&iq=@iq=h@iRuh&&&&&&&&&&&& fuoklh&&&&&&&&&&&& ijxuk&&&&&&&&&&&& rglhy&&&&&&&&&&&& tuin&&&&&&&&&&&& vkids fo:n~/k bl U;k;ky; esa izpfyr LVkEi deh ds okn ds lanHkZ esa vkidks ;g lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd jkT; ljdkj n~okjk tufgr esa lek/kku ;kstuk izkjEHk dh x;h gSA ;g ;kstuk ekg uoEcj] fnlEcj 2015] tuojh ,oa Qjojh 2016 esa izHkkoh gSA bl ;kstuk ds varxZr ;fn vki LVkEi deh dh /kujkf'k fu;ekuqlkj ns; C;kt ds lkFk tek djus ij lger gks rks vkids okn dks ek= :0 10-00 ds Vksdu vFkZ&n.M ds lkFk vfUre :i ls fuLrkfjr dj fn;k tk,xkA ;fn vki mDr ;kstuk ds varxZr vkius okn dk fuLrkj.k ds bPNqd gSa] rks rnuqlkj U;k;ky; esa ,d i{k esa viuh lgefr izLrqr dj nsaA okn dh lquokbZ dk LFkku&&&&&&&&&&&& lquokbZ gsrq fu;r frfFk &&&&&&&&&&&& vkt fnukad &&&&&&&&&&&&dks esjs gLrk{kj ls tkjh fd;k x;k gSA ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds g0@eqgj uksfVl nks izfr;ksa esa rglhynkj dks iathd`r Mkd ls bl vk'k; ls izsf"kr fd d`i;k bls i{kdkj dks rkehy djkdj 01 izfr mDr fu;r frfFk ls iwoZ bl U;k;ky; esa okil fHktokus dh O;oLFkk djsA (Emphasis supplied by me) 6. It is wholly undisputed that much prior to the coming into existence of the aforesaid compounding scheme dated 4.11.2015, the entire demand including penalty and interest, pursuant to the order of A.D.M. (F/R) dated 27.12.2014 was recovered by the Tehsil Authorities/Collector from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue and nothing remained to be recovered from the petitioner after 20th July, 2015. 7. However, the petitioner cleverly and suppressing the material facts, moved an application dated 10.12.2015/28.12.2015 in his pending Revision No. 74 of 2015 as under: U;k;ky; Jheku lh0lh0vkj0,s0@vk;qDr egksn;] vkxjk e.My] vkxjkA fuxjkuh la0& 74@015 lkjka'k 'kekZ cuke m0iz0 jkT; vUrxZr /kkjk&56¼1½ Hkk0LVk0 vfèkfu;e] ftyk&eFkqjkA fo"k;%& LVkEi deh ds oknksa dh lek/kku ;kstuk ds vUrxZr mDr fuxjkuh dk fuLrkj.k djus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] lsok esa fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ us fo}ku voj U;k;ky; ds iz'uxr vkns'k fnukad&27-12-14 ds fo:) fuxjkuh ;ksftr dh gS] ftlesa lquokbZ gsrq vkt dh rkjh[k fu;r gSA 2- ;g fd 'kklu us ,sls ekeyksa dks fuLrkj.k gsrq mDr ;kstuk ls lEcfU/kr nks 'kklukns'k ;Fkk dze'k% fnukad 4-11-15 ,oa 19-11-15 tkjh fd;s gSa] ftuesa ;g O;oLFkk gS fd LVkEi dh deh rFkk ml ij ns; C;kt ,oa 10@& Vksdu vFkZn.M vkjksfir djus ds mijkar dsl dk fuLrkj.k dj vfHkys[k dks ;Fkk LVkfEir ekuk tk;sxkA blfy, izkFkhZ mDr ;kstuk ds rgr ;g izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj jgk gSA vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd U;k;fgr esa izkFkhZ dks mDr ykHkkfUor ;kstuk ds rgr ykHk nsrs gq, mDr fuxjkuh dk fuLrkj.k mijksDrkuqlkj djus dh d`ik djsaA^^ fnukad&10-12-15 izkFkhZ 28-12-15 ¼lkjka'k 'kekZ½ }kjk %& g0 v0 ghjsUnziky flag ,MoksdsV 8. Perusal of the aforesaid application, clearly shows that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the entire facts with regard to recovery of the entire demand from him much prior to coming into force of the compounding scheme. It appears that neither the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 pointed out the material facts of recovery of the entire demand from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue nor the Divisional Commissioner took pain to inquire and look into the records so as to find out as to whether the scheme itself was applicable on the petitioner? It appears that neither the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 pointed out the material facts of recovery of the entire demand from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue nor the Divisional Commissioner took pain to inquire and look into the records so as to find out as to whether the scheme itself was applicable on the petitioner? In fact, the application for compounding was moved by the petitioner with a calculated purpose for refund under the compounding scheme, of the amount already recovered from him whereas the compounding scheme was for recovery of arrears of deficient stamp duty and interest. 9. However, the Divisional Commissioner by order dated 27.2.2016 disposed of the Revision of the petitioner on the ground that the entire demand including penalty and interest totalling Rs. 25,31,000/- has been confirmed by the A.D.M. (F/R) to have been deposited by the petitioner. It appears that the Divisional Commissioner was misled by concealment of fact that the entire arrears against the petitioner were recovered much before the scheme came into existence. 10. After the petitioner got his revision disposed of by the Divisional Commissioner by order dated 27.2.2016, he applied for refund before the A.D.M. (F/R), Mathura by application dated 14.3.2016, although the Divisional Commissioner in his order dated 27.2.2016 passed in Revision No. 74 of 2015 has not granted any refund. 10. After the petitioner got his revision disposed of by the Divisional Commissioner by order dated 27.2.2016, he applied for refund before the A.D.M. (F/R), Mathura by application dated 14.3.2016, although the Divisional Commissioner in his order dated 27.2.2016 passed in Revision No. 74 of 2015 has not granted any refund. For ready reference, the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 27.2.2016 in Revision No. 74 of 2015 is reproduced below: U;k;ky; vk;qDr] vkxjk e.My] vkxjkA fuxjkuh la[;k&74@2015 tuin&eFkqjkA vUrxZr /kkjk&56 Hkkjrh; LVkEi vf/kfu;eA lkjka'k 'kekZ &fuxjkuhdrkZ cuke mRrj izns'k ljdkj & foi{kh udy vkns'k mijksDr fuxjkuh vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼fo@jk½] eFkqjk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27-12-2014 ds fo:) izLrqr dh x;h gS ftlds }kjk /kkjk&47d¼3½ Hkkjrh; LVkEi vf/kfu;e ds rgr :0 4]67]950 LVkEi deh] ,oa :0 18]71]800 vFkZn.M vkjksfir fd;k x;k gSA 2- esjs }kjk LVkEi deh ds oknksa dh lekèkku ;kstuk ds varxZr fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk ,oa jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls fo}ku ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk ¼jktLo½ dh vksj ls izLrqr rdksZ dks lquk rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa miyC/k lk{;ksa dk voyksdu fd;kA 3- fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk fnukad 28-12-2015 dks U;k;ky; ds le{k izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj vuqjks/k fd;k x;k fd mlds }kjk deh LVkEi :0 4]67]950] vFkZn.M :0 18]71]800] C;kt :0 1]91]250 ,oa vFkZn.M :0 10-00 dqy :0 25]31]300 iw.kZ:is.k tek dj fn;k x;k blfy;s 'kklukns'k la[;k&24@2015@1063@94@LVk0fu0&2015&700@¼01½@2015 fnukad 04-11-2015 ds rgr lek/kku ;kstuk ds varxZr fuxjkuh dks fu.khZr dj fn;k tk;sA 4- mDr lanfHkZr izdj.k ds laca/k esa vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼fo@jk½] eFkqjk ls fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk tek /kujkf'k dh iqf"V djk;h x;hA vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼fo@j½] eFkqjk us vius i= la[;k&1828 fnukad 8-2-2016 ls fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk vkjksfir LVkEi deh :0 4]67]950] vFkZn.M :0 18]71]800] C;kt :0 1]91]250 ,oa vFkZn.M :0 10-00 dqy :0 25]31]300 tek djus dh iqf"V dj nh x;h gSA vr% 'kklukns'k fnukad 04-11-2015 esa fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa ds vuqikyu esa iz'uxr fuxjkuh fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA vkns'k dh ,d izfr voj U;k;ky; dks Hksth tk;sA okn vko’;d dk;Zokgh i=koyh nkf[ky n~rj dh tk;sA^^ fnukad% Qjojh 27] 2016 g0 v0 ¼iznhi HkVukxj½ e.Myk;qDr] vkxjkA 11. From the facts as afore-noted as well as the compounding scheme dated 4.11.2015, it is evident that neither the compounding scheme provided for any refund of amount recovered prior to coming into existence of the compounding scheme nor there was any order of the Divisional Commissioner for refund and yet, during pendency of this writ petition the A.D.M. (F/R) granted a refund of Rs. 18,71,800/- and credited it in the petitioner’s bank account No. 34720100000030, Bank of Baroda, Branch Office-Raya, Mathura on 25.2.2017. Thus, the action of the A.D.M. (F/R), Mathura to refund Rs. 18,71,000/- to the petitioner is wholly unauthorised and illegal. 12. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the petitioner a sum of Rs. 18,94,588/- with interest @ 1.5% per month from the date of deposit till the date of payment. 13. Para-3 and Sub-Para (8) of the compounding scheme clearly indicates that the object of the scheme is to reduce litigation and to realise arrears of deficient stamp duty and interest which could not be recovered due to litigation. Sub-para (2) of Para-3 provides for applicability of the scheme to those who wish to deposit the arrears of deficiency of stamp duty with interest. Sub paras (4), (5) and (6) of Para-3 of the scheme provides that the person opting under the scheme shall deposit in Government Treasury the amount of arrears of deficient stamp duty and interest and Rs. 10/- as token penalty within a week from the date fixed by the Prescribed Authority and produce the proof of deposit alongwith an application which shall be got verified and on receipt of verification report, the Prescribed Authority shall dispose of the case on token penalty of Rs. 10/-. Even the notice to parties in pending cases were given intimating them that the compounding scheme offered for compounding only to those litigants who wish to deposit the arrears of deficiency of stamp duty, interest and token penalty of Rs. 10/- for disposal of their case. The aforesaid compounding scheme does not provide for refund of any amount deposited by a litigant or recovered from him before the scheme came into force. 10/- for disposal of their case. The aforesaid compounding scheme does not provide for refund of any amount deposited by a litigant or recovered from him before the scheme came into force. The compounding scheme is in the nature of a policy decision of the State Government which cannot be widened to grant refund of already recovered amount so as to frustrate the scheme itself. While considering a ‘KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME’ of the Central Government, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Nitdip Textiles Processors Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (273) ELT 321 SC, held that purpose of the scheme is to bring down litigation and realise arrears. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Rajkot v. Shatrusailya Digvijay Singh Jadeja, 2005 (192) ELT 3 SC (Para 12), Hon’ble Supreme Court termed a similar scheme relating to Income Tax to be a ‘Recovery Scheme’. Similar view has also been expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Killick Nixon Ltd. Mumbai v. Dy. C.I.T., Mumbai, (2003) 1 SCC 145 (Para 9) and Master Cables (P.) Ltd. v. State of Kerla, (2007) 5 SCC 416 (Para 8). 14. Facts of the case as briefly noted above and the compounding scheme itself as discussed above leads to an irresistible conclusion that neither the petitioner is entitled for refund under the said compounding scheme nor the said compounding scheme provides for any refund. Under the circumstances, the relief as prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is frivolous. It is in fact abuse of process of law based on concealment of material facts before the authorities and an attempt to obtain an order from this Court under Atricle 226 of the Constitution of India with a calculated motive so as to defeat the very object of the compounding scheme. 16. In the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and another v. Mrs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others, (Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 25331-33, decided on 1.3.2017), a three judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court considered an attempt to abuse the process by a litigant and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 5 lacs and commended all Courts to deal with frivolous filings firmly holding as under: “13. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others, (Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 25331-33, decided on 1.3.2017), a three judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court considered an attempt to abuse the process by a litigant and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 5 lacs and commended all Courts to deal with frivolous filings firmly holding as under: “13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth. 14. Courts across the legal system - this Court not being an exception - are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the Courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if Courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behaviour. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that Courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. This tendency can be curbed only if Courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behaviour. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that Courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all Courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every Court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the Courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to Courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all Courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all Courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner.” 17. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- which the petitioner shall deposit with the Legal Cell Authority, High Court, Allahabad within a month from today. The amount of refund as mentioned in para 11 above, obtained by the petitioner shall be returned by him by depositing it with the respondent No. 2 within a month from today failing which the authorities shall be free to recover it from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.