Allahabad High Court
Munni Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 23 May, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39338
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4599 of 2024
Petitioner :- Munni Devi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue,Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Meva Lal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 27th February, 2024 passed in revision No. 1270 of 2022 under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 whereby petitioner's application for grant of interim relief in the revision has been rejected.
3. It has been submitted that proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act were initiated against petitioner resulting in passing of the order dated 25th April, 2022 imposing stamp duty, penalty and interest upon petitioner. The said order was challenged by petitioner in the aforesaid appeal along with an application for grant of interim protection which has been rejected by means of impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order, the appellate authority has conducted a virtual examination of the merits of the entire case without adverting to the fact that appeal had already been admitted for hearing and recovery certificate had been issued against petitioner in pursuance of the order passed under section 47-A.
5. Learned State Counsel does not have any instructions in this matter.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the factual aspects as indicated herein above are quite evident from the perusal of impugned order itself which thereafter rejects the application for interim relief while discussing the entire dispute and posting hearing of appeal to a later date. The order impugned makes it also evident that hearing in the appeal has already taken place and is also ongoing. The admission of appeal for hearing therefore is implied.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another versus Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others reported in (1982) 3 SCC 484 has already enunciated the law that where an appeal is admitted for hearing and implementation of order impugned in appeal would have adverse consequences, interim protection should generally be granted till disposal of appeal.
8. The aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case where the order passed under section 47-A of the Act is under challenge in appeal which is being heard on merits. In such circumstances, the appellate authority should have considered grant of interim protection.
9. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 27th February, 2024 is hereby set aside. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties not to release the amount of Rs. 25,01,230/- in accordance with order passed under section 47-A of the Act from the petitioner till disposal of appeal No. 1270 of 2022.
10. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.
Order Date :- 23.5.2024
prabhat
