Allahabad High Court
M/S Unnat Hydro System Pvt. Ltd. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 14 July, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45728-DB
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5817 of 2023
Petitioner :- M/S Unnat Hydro System Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Smt. Nalini Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrett. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shanker Pandey,Abhishek Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Present writ petition has been preferred by petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 20.06.2023 passed by respondent no.2 i.e. District Collector, District Unnao in Case No.15 of 2020 under Section 47(3) of Indian Stamp Act.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that father-in-law of petitioner had issued a consent letter dated 20.05.2016 in favour of petitioner-director and her husband for using the land for the purposes of running a factory. The authorities issued a notice treating it as a gift deed. Against the same petitioner has submitted his reply, however, without considering the same the impugned order has been passed on 20.06.2023 treating the consent letter as gift deed and imposed a deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.13,10,160/-. Further a penalty of the same amount of Rs.13,10,160/- has also been imposed. It is further submitted that the said action on part of respondents is arbitrary and unreasonable and, hence, the order order is liable to be quashed.
3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition as the petitioner has statutory remedy to file an appeal under Section 56 of the Stamp Act. It is further submitted that the impugned order was passed after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar as far as it is related to the present case. It is further submitted that the authority in a most arbitrary manner has imposed the deficiency in stamp duty along with penalty of equal amount treating the consent letter as gift deed. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.598 of 2015 'Smt. Vijaya Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others' wherein also the objection was raised that the alternative remedy of revision is available and the learned Single Judge has relegated the petitioner to the alternative remedy. Against the order of learned Single Judge, the special appeal has been preferred wherein the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court has entertained the matter despite the availability of statutory alternative remedy relying upon the judgment passed in case of 'Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. Smt. P. Laxmi' reported as (2008) 4 SCC 720 and a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 'Har Devi Asnani Vs. State of Rajsthan'; reported as (2011) 14 SCC 160.
5. Since, only the issue of availability of alternative remedy and whether the consent letter has rightly been treated as gift deed is to be considered, hence, the matter is being decided at the admission stage only.
6. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the judgment relied by learned counsel for petitioner it is found that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India is having jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in cases where the orders have been passed arbitrarily and in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
7. In the present case, the consent letter issued by the father-in-law of petitioner in favour of petitioner (the director) and her husband (the son) is not a gift deed. It is only a permission to the family member to use the property without transferring any right. In the consent letter a condition is also provided that on asking petitioner has to vacate the premises. Without accepting any consideration for the same, at most, it can be said to be a license to use the property. Hence, passing the impugned order treating the consent letter as a gift deed is arbitrary.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed.
9. The impugned order dated 20.06.2023 passed by respondent no.2 is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 14.7.2023
Arti/-
[Manish Kumar,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
