Uttam Aahi vs Vishram Nai
2022 Latest Caselaw 3389 MP

                                                           1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                                 ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2022

                                           WRIT PETITION No. 19753 of 2016

                               Between:-
                               UTTAM AAHI S/O SHRI KULAVATAR AAHI , AGED
                               ABOUT   28   YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
                               BANDHAVGARH COLONY THANA KOLGAON TEH-
                               RAGHURAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                               (BY SHRI ABHISHEK SINGH, ADVOCATE)

                               AND

                      1.       VISHRAM NAI S/O SHRI KASHIDIN NAI , AGED
                               ABOUT 53 YEARS, GORAO KHURD THANA
                               UNCHEHARA TEH- UNCHEHARA (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                      2.       RAMCHARAN NAI S/O SHRI KASHIDIN NAI , AGED
                               ABOUT 48 YEARS, GORAO KHURD , THANA
                               UNCHEHARA TEH- UNCHEHARA (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                      3.       JITENDRA AGARWAL S/O SHRI R.C AGARWAL ,
                               AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ADARSH COLONY REWA
                               ROAD THANA KOLGAON TEH. RAGHURAJNAGAR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.       COLLECTOR SATNA THE STATE OF MADHYA
                               PR AD ES H COLLECTRATE BUILDING DHAWARI
                               TEH. RAGHURAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                               (BY SHRI KAMAL SINGH BAGHEL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                            Th is petition has come for hearing on this day and the court passed
                      following:
                                                            ORDER

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 18.7.2016 contained in Annexure P/6.

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that Court does not have jurisdiction to order a party to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on it. It is submitted that there is sharp discretion in the language of Sections 38 and 40 of the Indian Stamp Act. Collector has discretion to impose penalty less than 10 times, Signature SAN Not Verified but such discretion is not there with District Judge. In view of same, District Judge Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY does not have jurisdiction to pass order dated 18.7.2016. Counsel for the appellant Date: 2022.03.16 16:27:30 IST

relied on the judgment reported in 2010(2) M.P.L.J. 104-Umesh Kumar s/o Prakash Chandra Sharma Vs. Rajaram s/o Ramchandra Jat and another. By placing reliance on the said judgment, it is submitted by him that Court does not have jurisdiction and order is bad in law.

Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of petitioner and it is submitted by him that Court has jurisdiction to order a party to pay deficit stamp duty and also order him to pay penalty. As per Sections 33 and 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, there is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Division Bench judgment relied by counsel for the petitioner is in respect of unregistered document and not in respect of unduly stamped document, therefore, same is not applicable.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is ready to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty, therefore, matter be referred to Collector under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act. Petitioner has not made request to trial Court to impound the document and send it to Collector. In the absence of same, no direction can be given in the order. However, petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before the Court under the said provision of law.

In view of same, I do not find any illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order dated 18.7.2016 contained in Annexure P/6.

Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is disposed off.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE DUBEY/-

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
ARVIND KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2022.03.16
16:27:30 IST