Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... vs Smt. Suman Verma on 15 September, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:59126
Court No. - 20
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 183 of 2023
Applicant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp And Registration U.P. Lko. And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- Smt. Suman Verma
Counsel for Applicant :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(C.M. Application No. 1 of 2023)
Heard learned State Counsel on application for condonation of delay. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application is sufficient and as such delay in filing review against judgment and order dated 6th January, 2023 is sufficient and therefore delay is condoned.
(Memo of Review Application)
Review application has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 6th January, 2023 passed in Writ C No. 5376 of 2019 whereby the aforesaid writ petition filed against orders passed under Section 47-A(3) and Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 had been allowed.
Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of review petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid writ petition had been allowed primarily on the ground that impugned orders were based on spot inspection report conducted after almost nine months of execution of instrument of transfer and its presentation for registration due to which it was held that change of future circumstances subsequent to execution of instrument of transfer can not be a valid ground for imposition of stamp duty but the impugned order has ignored the fact that there was relevant document corroborating the fact that the property which was subject matter of instrument of transfer was in fact the abutting a metalled road and not an unmetalled one. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the letter dated 19th April, 2023 issued by the concerned official of the zila panchayat to indicate that metalled road which abutted the property in question had been constructed on Ist October, 2001 itself which was the basis of submissions not only before the authorities below but even in the counter affidavit filed before this court but has been ignored due to which error is apparent on the face of record.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for review petitioner and perusal of material on record, it is evident that letter dated 19th April, 2023 as well as the documents annexed thereto are being introduced for the first time in review proceedings. A perusal of orders passed under sections 47-A, Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act as well as the counter affidavit filed in writ petition do not indicate that any such document was ever brought on record in any of the said proceedings leading to the inescapable conclusion that such a document is being introduced for the first time in review proceedings.
Although apparently ground had been taken by the State that property in question abuts a metalled road but such a pleading does not appear to have been corroborated or substantiated by any document such as the one which is sought to be introduced in review proceedings. The impugned order clearly has been passed primarily on the basis that spot inspection report conducted nine months after the execution of instrument of transfer could not have been the basis for adjudging stamp duty.
In view of aforesaid, particularly since the document sought to be relied upon by the review petitioner was never on record prior to review proceedings, there can not be said to be any error apparent on face of record.
Consequently the review petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.9.2023
prabhat
