Ravi Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 7437 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 02.03.2023
 
Delivered on 15.03.2023
 
Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3757 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Ravi Chaudhary
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Goswami
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. The Court proceed to consider rival submissions on the premises of following undisputed facts of present case:

(a) Petitioner has purchased an agricultural land of Khasra No. 98 area measuring 0.4307 hectare in Village Mauja Kakua, Tehsil and District Agra and sale deed was executed on 15.02.2008.

(b) After registration a report was submitted with regard to deficiency of stamp duty and a case was registered. The Collector after considering objections determined deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 43,420/-.

(c) Petitioner accepted the deficiency and deposited the same and instrument was accordingly returned after being registered. This order was passed on 09.01.2009.

(d) Government kept silent for more than a decade and on instructions filed a revision under Section 56(1) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1899") alongwith an application for condonation of delay.

(e) Application for condonation of delay was allowed ex parte and delay of more than 12 years was condoned by impugned order dated 21.04.2022.

(f) Petitioner filed a recall application, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2022.

(g) Petitioner then preferred Writ-C No. 34498 of 2022 against above referred two orders wherein State sought time for instruction which was granted vide order dated 18.11.2022.

(h) During pendency of aforesaid writ petition Commissioner, Agra vide order dated 29.11.2022 partly allowed revision filed by State and order dated 09.01.2009 was set aside and matter was remanded.

(i) This writ petition is filed challenging above referred three orders, i.e., 21.04.2022 whereby application for condonation of delay was allowed; 13.10.2022 whereby petitioner's recall application was rejected and 29.11.2022 whereby order dated 09.01.2009 was set aside and matter was remanded.

2. Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned counsel for petitioner, has submitted that Revisional Authority has proceeded with case in violation of principles of natural justice and erroneously condoned delay of about 12 years at the back of petitioner. Learned counsel referred Section 56 of Act, 1899 that limitation was provided for 60 days only and, therefore, before dealing with application for condonation of delay of 12 years Revisional Authority ought to have heard petitioner.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that State has kept silence for about 12 years and suddenly woke up and on the basis of an instruction that some orders were passed erroneously under Act, 1899, filed revision in present case also. Grounds for condonation of delay of 12 years are very vaguely explained in application. There was no good and sufficient cause to condone huge delay in filing revision. He placed reliance on this Court's decision in M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. through its Vice President, New Delhi and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018(139) RD 766, paras 8 and 17, which are reproduced as under:

"8. Being a special act the Stamp Act contains its own special provisions, sections and clauses for preferring of an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by any person aggrieved including the Government and provides a specific time period for preferring such appeal which is 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Therefore, if a person is aggrieved by an order of the Collector, including the State and wishes to file an appeal against the same, he must to do so within a period of 60 days. Section 56 or its sub-section do not provide for condonation of delay on any ground whatsoever. That being the statutory restraint Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would have no application to any proceeding of appeal preferred under sub-section (1) (A) of Section 56 of the Act, 1899."

"17. In my opinion, such a finding is wholly illegal besides being perverse and did not empower the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to invoke the appellate jurisdiction once the undisputed facts on record unambiguously demonstrated that the appeals were filed after almost 500 days i.e. beyond the statutory period of limitation of 60 days as provided in sub-section 1(A) of Section 56 of the Act, 1899. Therefore, for reasons aforesaid the impugned orders dated 19.01.2004 and 17.06.2004 are absolutely illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 56 (1)(A) of the Act, 1899 and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sakuru (supra), Damodaran Pilai (supra), Singh Enterprises (supra) and Shivam Coke Industries, Dhanbad and Others (supra) the same are accordingly quashed."

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that revision was filed on the basis of instruction issued by Government on 05.12.2019 that State ought to have filed revision against orders where deficiency of stamp was wrongly calculated on lower side. This reason was found sufficient to condone delay and that petitioner was heard on recall application, therefore, he has no prejudice. Thereafter Revisional Authority has passed a detailed order on the basis of material available as well as location of land in question and set aside order passed under Section 47-A of Act, 1899 and matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. Petitioner has opportunity to raise all contentions before authority concerned.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is not in dispute that revision was filed after a delay of about 12 years. Revision was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay stating that a direction was passed by State on 05.12.2019 to file revision. Accordingly instruction was issued to file revision on 30.01.2021 and finally it was filed on 20.10.2021. Further reason was stated that there was no intentional delay on the part of State.

7. It is true that Court while considering application for condonation of delay should take a lenient and non pragmatic view, however, when there is a huge delay of 12 years the application for condonation of delay ought to have good and sufficient reasons to condone delay, i.e., delay should be explained properly. As mentioned above, in the present case delay of 12 years has been vaguely explained. However, such huge delay can be condoned if prima facie there is an allegation of fraud but in the present case there is no allegation that petitioner has played fraud.

8. In a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in Union of India vs Vishnu Aroma Pouching (P.) Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 263 it has deprecated tendency of State to file appeal, revision or SLP with huge delay without reasonable explanation. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as under:

"3. The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. The leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This position is no more prevalent and the current legal position has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. - (2012) 3 SCC 563. Despite this, there seems to be a little change in the approach of the Government and public authorities."

9. In the present case Revisional Authority has committed an error that without even issuing notice to petitioner by an ex parte order condoned delay of 12 years which was against the established principles of natural justice. Even recall application filed by petitioner was dismissed by a cryptic order. Since State is not able to satisfy that there were good and sufficient reasons to condone delay of 12 years as well as there is no plea of fraud as well, therefore, Revisional Authority has committed error in condoning delay of 12 years and further erred in considering case on merit. I have perused impugned order, however, I do not find any reason to enhance deficiency of stamp duty after 12 years.

10. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 21.04.2022, 13.10.2022 and 29.11.2022 are hereby set aside.

Order Date :-15.03.2023

AK