Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1485 (ALL)

Ram Palat Prasad v. District Magistrate, Mau

2018-07-05

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel who represents respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. It transpires from the record that a stamp of Rs. 4,07,100/- was purchased by the petitioner and one Mahipal Singh, i.e. the uncle of the petitioner, purporting to be the guardian of the petitioner, for execution of a gift deed by Surender Kumar, i.e. father of the petitioner, in favour of the petitioner who is minor. The aforesaid gift deed was signed by Mahipal Singh and Surendra Kumar, i.e. the donor, on 23.9.2014. However, it appears mat, subsequently Surender Kumar, i.e. the donor, changed his mind and refused to get the gift deed registered and implemented. In the circumstances, Mahipal Singh filed an application dated 9.10.2014 before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Saharanpur praying that allowances may be made for the stamp purchased by him and he may be refunded the amount of the stamp purchased by him after making deductions as prescribed under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The aforesaid application dated 9.10.2014 filed-by Mahipal Singh along with other applications filed by certain other persons claiming allowances for spoiled stamps, was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate(Finance & Revenue), District Saharanpur vide his order 31.8.2015. Against the order dated 31.8.2015, the petitioner filed a revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur which was numbered as Revision No. 5/2015-16 and the said revision was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Saharanpur vide his order dated 3.12.2015 as not maintainable. 2. Subsequently, on an application filed by the petitioner to consider his case separately. Stamp Refund Case No. 40/2014-15 was registered in the Court of Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), District Saharanpur and the said case was dismissed by the aforesaid Officer vide his order dated 4.12.2015 on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to refund under section 49(d) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899. The orders dated 31.8.2015 and 4.12.2015 passed by Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), District Saharanpur, i.e. respondent No. 3 and order dated 3.12.2015 passed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Commissioner Saharanpur Division Saharanpur, i.e. respondent No. 2, have been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. The orders dated 31.8.2015 and 4.12.2015 passed by Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), District Saharanpur, i.e. respondent No. 3 and order dated 3.12.2015 passed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Commissioner Saharanpur Division Saharanpur, i.e. respondent No. 2, have been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that the opinion of the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector as recorded in his order dated 4.12.2015 that the case of the petitioner was not covered by any clause in section 49(d) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is erroneous in as much as the petitioner had claimed allowances for the stamps purchased by him for execution of a gift deed by Surender Kumar in his favour and the same could not be completed as Surender Kumar had subsequently changed his mind and refused to complete the sale deed. 4. It has been argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner was entitled for refund of the amount under section 49(d)(iii) of the Act, 1899. 5. I have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. 6. A perusal of the gift deed annexed as (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) shows that the gift deed was signed by Surender Kumar i.e. the donor as well as Mahipal Singh purporting to be guardian of the petitioner. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the gift deed had been executed and therefore, there was no refusal on the part of the donor to execute the same. 8. For the aforesaid reason, the case of the petitioner was not covered by section 49(d)(iii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and no illegality was committed by the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), District Saharanpur in dismissing Stamp Refund Case No. 40/2014-15 on the ground that the case of the petitioner was not covered by any clause in section 49(d) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. There is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed.