Allahabad High Court
Aditya Kumar Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:55970
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7215 of 2023
Petitioner :- Aditya Kumar Singh And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance U.P. Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Shukla,Prabhat Kumar Mishra,Prashant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.06.2026 passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Stamps), Lucknow whereby rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay.
3. It has been submitted that the said appeal was preferred against the order of District Magistrate/Prescribed Authority under Section 47-A of Indian Stamps Act thereby holding that the sale deed registered on 18.12.2018 was undervalued and understamped on the basis of the said land being agricultural land and the stamp duty was paid while in fact the same was residential in nature as decided by the Collector, Stamps.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the registration of the sale deed on 18.12.2018, a report was submitted before the Collector, Stamps indicating that the land which is subject matter of the said sale deed is a residential in nature while in the said sale deed it has been wrongly described as agricultural land and accordingly notices were issued to the petitioners.
5. The petitioners had engaged a counsel who had filed his Vakalatnam and put in appearance before the Collector, Stamps but did not participate in the proceedings thereafter and neither did they file any objections on the basis of material on record, Collector, Stamps came to the opinion that land in question has wrongly been described as agricultural land while in fact residential activities are prevalent all around the land and consequently the said land is residential in nature. By means of the impugned order, all relevant material has been considered and directed the petitioners to deposit further amount of Rs. 20,440/- along with simple interest. The said order was passed on 13.08.2020 and according to the petitioners they were never made aware of the said order. It is only when the regular proceedings were initiated the petitioners initially filed an application for recall against the order dated 13.08.2020 and subsequently preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Stamps, Lucknow.
6. The said appeal was filed on 09.06.2023 and consequently they also made an application for condonation of delay. It was submitted that when the order was passed by the Prescribed Authority/Collector, Stamps, the Corona Pandemic was prevalent all over the country and even Hon'ble the Supreme Court had passed an order granting the benefit of limitation period during the said period.
7. It is admitted that the Corona Pandemic period ended on 15.02.2022 and only the delay subsequent to the said date was to be explained by the petitioners. The petitioners had submitted that there have been several deaths in the family and also the fact that the counsel appointed by them did not inform them about the said order and consequently for lack of knowledge they could not file the appeal in time and consequently prayed that the delay may be condoned. The Dy. Commissioner, Stamps has duly considered the grounds raised by the petitioner for condonation of delay. He has taken into account of the fact that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings by the Collector, Stamps inasmuch as the appearance was put on their behalf before the said authority and consequently it cannot be said that they were not aware of the proceedings and the order order passed by the Collector, Stamps dated 13.08.2020.
8. With regard to the delay of more than one year subsequent to the end of the Corona Pandemic only a vague statement was made that several family members had died but no documentary evidence was annexed so as to indicate as to whether any close member of the family has died or they were disabled due to the said demise of the family members from approaching this Court. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, Dy. Commissioner, stamps has declined to condone the delay as there was no reasonable explanation for the same.
9. Learned counsel for petitioners has reiterated the same facts which were urged before the appellate authority. This Court has also given due consideration to the grounds raised by them, and is also of the considered view that the petitioners have been unable to give any reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. Further, it is noticed that the petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings launched under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act inasmuch as Vakalatnama was filed on their behalf before the Collector, Stamps and consequently their counsel did not participate in the said proceedings.
10. Once due representation was made on behalf of petitioners then it was their duty to see that they were duly represented on each day before the prescribed authority and merely because their counsel did not appear on any date subsequently, ground has taken by him that they were not aware of the proceedings nor of the judgment dated 13.08.2020. The Court cannot come to rescue a person who deliberately despite knowledge of the proceeding chooses not to participate or appear before the said authority. This Court also considered the delay after 15.02.2022 merely by stating that there has been number of deaths in the family is not sufficient itself to condone the delay. No details or relationship of the deceased or the documents with regard to the said demise has been affixed by the petitioners in support of their application either before the appellate authority or before this Court.
11. In light of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the appellate order and consequently there is no interference in the same in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 23.8.2023
Ravi/
