Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 225 (MP)

Poonam Gupta v. State of M. P.

2025-03-26

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

body2025
ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal No.515 PBR/2006 whereby while dismissing the appeal the order dated 22.2.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division in First Appeal No.393/2004-05 was affirmed. 2. The petitioner is further aggrieved by order dated 22.2.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner in First Appeal whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 29.12.2004 passed by the Collector of Stamps, District Gwalior was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2004 passed by the Collector of Stamps whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the deficit stamp duty of Rs.4,18,800/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that one sale deed with regard to a land admeasuring 5 Bigha and 17 Biswa situated at village Sirol, District Gwalior was executed on 13.7.2004. At the time of its registration the valuation of the property was done as Rs.35,16,000/- and accordingly the stamp duty was paid. It was further argued that after the execution of the sale deed the present respondent No.4 filed a complaint before the Sub Registrar Gwalior about the deficiency of the stamp duty on the said sale deed and a similar complaint was made by another person namely R.N. Tripathi and on both the complaints the proceedings under section 47-A of the India Stamp Act, 1899 were initiated and notices were issued to the petitioner for determination of the value of the property sold to her vide the sale deed in question. It was further argued that on receiving the said notice reply was submitted on behalf of the petitioner and Collector of Stamps vide order dated 29.12.2004 determined the value of the property at Rs.66,50,000/- and accordingly found that the stamp duty of Rs.4,18,800/- is deficient, thus directed the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid stamp duty but the said order was never communicated to the petitioner which was required as per sub-section 6 of section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, therefore, the order could not come in the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore could not be challenged in appeal. 4. 4. It was further argued that it was only when the notice of attachment dated 14.3.2005 was received that immediately appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner but Additional Commissioner without considering the provisions of section 47-A sub-section 6 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation being barred by more than seven months. Learned counsel further submits that when the said order was put to challenge by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue similar reasoning was given and the second appeal was also dismissed which is per se illegal as there was no occasion for the petitioner to have acquired the knowledge of passing of the order by the Collector of Stamps dated 29.12.2004. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, it is submitted that the present petition be allowed and the matter be remitted back to the Additional Commissioner for deciding the appeal on merits. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that no illegality has been committed by the Additional Commissioner in dismissing the appeal on merits as it was lethargy on the part of the petitioner herself who have not gained the knowledge of passing of the order or had made any efforts to acquire the knowledge of passing of the order by the Collector of Stamps. Thus when the petitioner herself was sleeping in deep slumber, the appeal was rightly dismissed and therefore affirmed by the Board of Revenue. 6. While referring to Annexure R/3 learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is not correct to say that the notices of the passing of the order passed by the Collector of Stamps dated 29.12.2004 was not communicated to the petitioner rather the petitioner was having full knowledge of passing of the order but even then the petitioner did not prefer appeal against the order of Collector of Stamps before the Additional Commissioner in time. Thus the contention of the petitioner has no merits and the petition therefore be dismissed with exemplary cost. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Thus the contention of the petitioner has no merits and the petition therefore be dismissed with exemplary cost. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Section 47-A sub- Section 6 of the Indian Stamp Act as existed prior to 23.10.2017 the date on which it was deleted, reads as under:- (6) every first and second appeal shall be filed within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order against which the appeal is filed, alongwith a certified copy of the order to which objection is made and shall be presented and verified in such manner as may be prescribed. 9. According to the said sub-Section every first and second appeal shall be preferred within 30 days from the date of the communication of the order against which the appeal is filed. Thus, the said sub-section indicates that the authority i.e. Collector of Stamps was required to communicate the order dated 29.12.2004 impugned before the Commissioner to the petitioner. Though, the State has tried to contradict the non-communication of the order by way of Annexure R/3 a notice issued to the petitioner of passing of the order but the said notice doesn't bear any date nor there is any proof of the service/receiving of said notice by the petitioner. Thus it can be very well said that the mandatory requirement of section 47-A sub section 6 was not complied with, therefore, the petitioner could not get the knowledge of the passing of the order by the Collector of Stamps. The reasoning given by the Additional Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue that the petitioner herself was not vigilant and has not kept track of the order passed by the Collector of Stamps in wake of the said legal position is of no consequence. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P/1) and 22.2.2006 (Annexure P/2) are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Commissioner for deciding the appeal on its own merits.