# Bindu Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 260
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-04
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 8666 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bindu-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51169
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Contents of the show-cause
notice - Purpose of serving of show-cause
notice is to make the noticee understand
the precise case set up against him, which
he has to meet. Show-cause notice must
contain the statement of imputations
detailing out the alleged breaches and
defaults he has committed, so that he gets
an opportunity to rebut the same. It is
equally important to mention as to what
would be the consequence if the noticee
does not satisfactorily meet the grounds
on which an action is proposed. A showcause notice should meet the following
two
requirements,
viz.:
(i)
The
material/grounds to be stated which,
according to the department, necessitates
an action; (ii) Particular penalty/action
which is proposed to be taken. (Para 13)
B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899- Section 47-A -
Show-cause notice - In the instant case,
two cases under Section 47-A of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, were instituted
on the basis of two similarly worded
notices dated 07.10.2022, stating that
sale deeds were executed in favour of the
petitioner and it had come to light that
there was a deficiency in payment of the
sale. Nothing further was stated in the
notices regarding the basis of satisfaction
that there was a deficiency in the payment
of stamp duty. The notices do not even
mention the amount of deficiency in the
payment of stamp duty or any other
particulars. Held - The show-cause notice
does not serve any purpose, as, in the
absence of the particulars in the notice,
the noticee cannot submit a proper reply
to the notice. (Para 14)
C. Stamp Duty - Recovery of deficient
stamp
duty
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Stamp
(Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, Rule
7(3)(c) - Collector may inspect the
property after due notice to parties to the
instrument. Report of any inspection
which
has
not
been
conducted
in
accordance with the provisions of Rule
7(3)(c) of the 1997 Rules cannot form the
basis of an order for recovery of deficient
stamp duty. (Para 16)
D. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Recovery of
deficiency in payment of registration fee -
There is no provision in the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 empowering the authorities to
order
recovery
of
any
deficiency
in
payment of registration fee, and in
absence of any statutory provision, the
authorities cannot pass any order for
recovery of deficiency of registration fee
in proceedings instituted under the Indian
Stamp Act. (Para 17)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
Gorkha Security Services Vs Govt. of NCT of
Delhi & ors. (2014) 9 SCC 105

## Text

260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
member committee appointed by the
District
Magistrate
will
continue
to
discharge their functions.

----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 260
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-C No. 8666 of 2024
And
Writ-C No. 8680 of 2024

Bindu Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Sant Prasad Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Contents of the show-cause
notice - Purpose of serving of show-cause
notice is to make the noticee understand
the precise case set up against him, which
he has to meet. Show-cause notice must
contain the statement of imputations
detailing out the alleged breaches and
defaults he has committed, so that he gets
an opportunity to rebut the same. It is
equally important to mention as to what
would be the consequence if the noticee
does not satisfactorily meet the grounds
on which an action is proposed. A showcause notice should meet the following
two
requirements,
viz.:
(i)
The
material/grounds to be stated which,
according to the department, necessitates
an action; (ii) Particular penalty/action
which is proposed to be taken. (Para 13)
B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899- Section 47-A -
Show-cause notice - In the instant case,
two cases under Section 47-A of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, were instituted
on the basis of two similarly worded
notices dated 07.10.2022, stating that
sale deeds were executed in favour of the
petitioner and it had come to light that
there was a deficiency in payment of the
sale. Nothing further was stated in the
notices regarding the basis of satisfaction
that there was a deficiency in the payment
of stamp duty. The notices do not even
mention the amount of deficiency in the
payment of stamp duty or any other
particulars. Held - The show-cause notice
does not serve any purpose, as, in the
absence of the particulars in the notice,
the noticee cannot submit a proper reply
to the notice. (Para 14)
C. Stamp Duty - Recovery of deficient
stamp
duty
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Stamp
(Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, Rule
7(3)(c) - Collector may inspect the
property after due notice to parties to the
instrument. Report of any inspection
which
has
not
been
conducted
in
accordance with the provisions of Rule
7(3)(c) of the 1997 Rules cannot form the
basis of an order for recovery of deficient
stamp duty. (Para 16)
D. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Recovery of
deficiency in payment of registration fee -
There is no provision in the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 empowering the authorities to
order
recovery
of
any
deficiency
in
payment of registration fee, and in
absence of any statutory provision, the
authorities cannot pass any order for
recovery of deficiency of registration fee
in proceedings instituted under the Indian
Stamp Act. (Para 17)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
Gorkha Security Services Vs Govt. of NCT of
Delhi & ors. (2014) 9 SCC 105
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
10 All. Bindu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
261

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi
and Sri Sant Prasad Singh Advocates, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Hemant
Kumar
Pandey,
the
learned
Standing Counsel for the State and perused
the records.

2. Writ C No.8666 of 2024 has
been filed challenging validity of an order
dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Additional
District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue),
District - Ambedkar Nagar in Case
No.1226 of 2022, under Section 47-A of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, whereby a
deficiency of Rs.39,080/- in payment of
Stamp Duty and Rs.7,240/- in payment of
registration fee has been imposed regarding
Document
No.
1549/2022.
Besides
ordering for recovery of the amount of
deficiency in payment of Stamp Duty and
registration fee, a penalty of Rs.10,000/-
has been imposed and the entire amount
has been ordered to be recovered from the
petitioner along with interest at the rate of
1.5% per month. The petitioner had filed an
appeal under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian
Stamp Act, bearing Case No.581 of 2024,
which has been dismissed by means of a
judgment and order dated 26.07.2024
passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Stamp), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and
the petitioner has challenged validity of the
aforesaid order also.

3. Writ C No. 8680 of 2024 has
been filed challenging validity of an
order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the
Additional District Magistrate (Finance
and Revenue), District - Ambedkar Nagar
in Case No.1228 of 2022, under Section
47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899,
whereby a deficiency of Rs.1,81,100/- in
payment of Stamp Duty and Rs.36,220/-
in payment of registration fee has been
imposed
regarding
document
no.
1548/2022. Besides ordering for recovery
of the amount of deficiency in payment
of Stamp Duty and registration fee, a
penalty of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed
and the entire amount has been ordered to
be recovered from the petitioner along
with interest at the rate of 1.5% per
month. The petitioner had filed an appeal
under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian
Stamp Act, bearing Case No.579 of 2024,
which has been dismissed by means of a
judgment and order dated 26.07.2024
passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Stamp), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya
and the petitioner has challenged validity
of the aforesaid order also.

4. Common questions of facts
and law are involved in both the Writ
Petitions and, therefore, both the petitions
are
being
decided
by
a
common
judgment. As the petitions are proposed
to be decided without going into the
merits of the case, the learned Counsel
for the parties have consented for final
disposal of the petition without filing of
counter affidavits.

5 . Case Nos.1226 of 2022 and -
1228 of 2022, under Section 47-A of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 were instituted
on the basis of two similarly worded
notices dated 07.10.2022 issued by the
Additional District Magistrate (Finance
and Revenue), Ambedkar Nagar to the
petitioner stating that sale deeds have
been executed in favour of the petitioner
and it had come to light that there is
deficiency in payment of the sale deeds.
The petitioner was asked to appear on
14.10.2022 and submit her objections
along with evidence.

6.

The
petitioner
submitted
detailed objections in response to the
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aforesaid two notices and thereafter the
impugned orders have been passed.

7. Sri. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, has
submitted that the petitioner had purchased
three separate plots of land through three
separate
sale
deeds
executed
on
02.07.2022. Immediately after execution of
the sale deeds, the petitioner came to know
that the sale deeds had been executed by
some impostor. The petitioner filed a First
Information Report bearing Case Crime
No.0092 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code in Police Station - Maharua,
District - Ambedkar Nagar on 18.07.2022.
After investigation, a charge-sheet has been
submitted in that case. The petitioner filed
a suit for cancellation of the three sale
deeds on 15.07.2022. The defendant -the
true owner of the property, entered into a
compromise with the plaintiff. The suit was
decreed in terms of the compromise on
13.08.2022 and the sale deeds were
cancelled. After cancellation of the sale
deeds, the petitioner applied for return of
the stamp duty whereupon the notices dated
07.10.2022 were issued.

8. Assailing the validity of
impugned orders, Sri. Amrendra Nath
Tripathi, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the notices
merely state that it has come to light that
there is a deficiency in payment of Stamp
Duty in the sale deeds. Nothing further has
been stated in the notices regarding the
basis of satisfaction that there is deficiency
in payment of stamp duty. The notices even
do not mention the amount of deficiency in
payment of stamp duty or any other
particular. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the case of Gorkha Security
Services versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi &
others: (2014) 9 SCC 105.

9. Replying to the aforesaid
submissions, Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey,
the learned Standing Counsel for the State
of U.P., has submitted that the notice
directed the petitioner to submit her
reply/objections along with evidence. He
has submitted that the petitioner had full
opportunity to raise all the pleas in
response to the notice and she has availed
that opportunity by submitting three
separate detailed replies dated 21.11.2022,
all of which were similarly worded. The
point of any defect in the notice dated
07.10.2022 was not raised in any of the
replies submitted by the petitioner. The
learned Standing Counsel has contended
that when the petitioner did not raise any
objection in her replies regarding any
illegality / deficiency in the notices. The
validity of the notice was not assailed even
in the memo of appeal filed by the
petitioner. He has submitted that as the
petitioner has failed to take this ground in
reply to the notice and in the memo of
appeal, she cannot be permitted to raise this
ground for the first time before this Court
in this petition. In support of his
submission, the learned Standing Counsel
has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Deepak
Tandon and others verses Rajesh Kumar
Gupta reported in (2019) 5 SCC 537,
wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
if a plea is not taken in the pleadings by the
parties and no issues on such plea was
framed and no finding was recorded either
by the trial court or the first appellate court,
such plea cannot be allowed to be raised by
the parties for the first time in third Court
in appeal, revision or writ as the case may
be, for want of any factual foundation for
the finding.
10 All. Bindu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
263
10. The facts in the case of
Deepak Tandon (Supra) were that an
application under Section 21(1) (a) of the
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 had
been filed for eviction of the tenant on the
ground of bona fide need. The respondenttenant filed his reply and the Prescribed
Authority allowed the application. The
appeal filed against the eviction order was
dismissed by the District Judge. However,
a petition filed under Section 227 against
the appellate order was allowed by this
Court and the order passed by the
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate
Court were set aside on the ground that the
application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.
P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not
maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
found that the High Court committed a
jurisdictional error as the question of
maintainability of the application under
Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act of 1972 had not
been raised in the written statement filed
before the Prescribed Authority and,
therefore, the Prescribed Authority had
rightly did not decide this issue. The issue
of maintainability was not raised even
before the first appellate court.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
had laid down the aforesaid principle in the
aforesaid factual background and had
further added that

 "15. In our considered opinion,
the High Court committed jurisdictional
error in setting aside the concurrent
findings of the two courts below and
thereby erred in allowing the respondent's
writ appeal and dismissing the appellants'
application under Section 21(1)(a) of the
1972 Act as not maintainable. This we say
for the following reasons:
 15.1. First, it is not in dispute that
the respondent (opposite party) had not
raised the plea of maintainability of the
appellants'
application
under
Section
21(1)(a) of the 1972 Act in his written
statement before the Prescribed Authority.

 15.2. Second,
since
the
respondent failed to raise the plea of
maintainability, the Prescribed Authority
rightly did not decide this question either
way.

 15.3. Third, the respondent again
did not raise the plea of maintainability
before the first appellate court in his
appeal and, therefore, the first appellate
court was also right in not deciding this
question either way.

 15.4. Fourth, it is a settled law
that if the plea is not taken in the
pleadings by the parties and no issue on
such plea was, therefore, framed and no
finding was recorded either way by the
trial court or the first appellate court, such
plea cannot be allowed to be raised by the
party for the first time in third court
whether in appeal, revision or writ, as the
case may be, for want of any factual
foundation and finding.

 15.5. Fifth, it is more so when
such plea is founded on factual pleadings
and requires evidence to prove i.e. it is a
mixed question of law and fact and not
pure jurisdictional legal issue requiring
no facts to probe.

 15.6. Sixth, the question as to
whether
the
tenancy
is
solely
for
residential purpose or for commercial
purpose or for composite purpose i.e. for
both residential and commercial purpose,
is not a pure question of law but is a
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
question of fact, therefore, this question is
required to be first pleaded and then
proved by adducing evidence. It is for this
reason, such question could not have been
decided by the High Court for the first
time in third round of litigation in its writ
jurisdiction simply by referring to some
portions of the pleadings. In any case and
without going into much detail, we are of
the view that if the tenancy is for composite
purpose because some portion of tenanted
premises was being used for residence and
some portion for commercial purpose i.e.
residential and commercial, then the
landlord will have a right to seek the
tenant's
eviction
from
the
tenanted
premises for his residential need or
commercial need, as the case may be.

 15.7. Seventh, the High Court
exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with
the concurrent findings of fact of the two
courts below while allowing the writ
appeal entirely on the new ground of
maintainability of the application without
examining the legality and correctness of
the concurrent findings of the two courts
below, which was impugned in the writ
appeal.

 15.8. Eighth, the High Court
should have seen that the concurrent
findings of facts of the two courts below
were binding on the writ court because
these findings were based on appreciation
of evidence and, therefore, did not call for
any interference in the writ jurisdiction.

 (Emphasis added)

12. The aforesaid principles were
laid down in the factual background where
the tenant had raised a new ground for the
first time before the High Court which
ground was based on a mixed question of
fact and law, which could only be decided
after examining the leadings and evidence
of the parties and, therefore, in absence of
the ground raised in the pleading and
evidence having been led in its support, the
High Court could not examine the new plea
which was raised for the first time. The
plea of notices dated 07.10.2022 being
vague, is apparent on the face of the record
and no question of fact is involved which
needs any evidence to enable this Court to
examine the validity of the notice dated
07.10.2022. Therefore, the principles of
law laid down in the case of Deepak
Tandon and others (Supra) would not
create a bar against this Court examining
the validity of the notice dated 07.10.2022.

13 . In the case of Gorkha
Security Services versus Govt. of NCT of
Delhi & others: (2014) 9 SCC 105,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
as follows: -

 "Contents of the show-cause
notice

 21. The central issue, however,
pertains to the requirement of stating the
action which is proposed to be taken. The
fundamental purpose behind the serving
of show-cause notice is to make the
noticee understand the precise case set up
against him which he has to meet. This
would
require
the
statement
of
imputations detailing out the alleged
breaches and defaults he has committed,
so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the
same. Another requirement, according to
us, is the nature of action which is
proposed to be taken for such a breach.
That should also be stated so that the
noticee is able to point out that proposed
action is not warranted in the given case,
even if the defaults/breaches complained of
10 All. Bindu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
265
are not satisfactorily explained. When it
comes to blacklisting, this requirement
becomes all the more imperative, having
regard to the fact that it is harshest
possible action.

 22. The High Court has simply
stated that the purpose of show-cause
notice is primarily to enable the noticee to
meet the grounds on which the action is
proposed against him. No doubt, the High
Court is justified to this extent. However, it
is equally important to mention as to what
would be the consequence if the noticee
does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on
which an action is proposed. To put it
otherwise, we are of the opinion that in
order
to
fulfil
the
requirements
of
principles of natural justice, a show-cause
notice should meet the following two
requirements viz:

 (i) The material/grounds to be
stated which according to the department
necessitates an action;

 (ii)
Particular
penalty/action
which is proposed to be taken. It is this
second requirement which the High Court
has failed to omit.

 We may hasten to add that even if
it is not specifically mentioned in the showcause notice but it can clearly and safely be
discerned from the reading thereof, that
would
be
sufficient
to
meet
this
requirement."

 (Emphasis added)

14. As the proceedings have been
instituted on the basis of the notices dated
07.10.2022, which do not contain any
factual averment to make out a deficiency
in payment of Stamp Duty and it does not
even disclose the amount of deficiency, the
date of sale deed or any other particular of
instrument, it does not serve any purpose,
as in absence of the particulars in the
notice, the noticee cannot submit a proper
reply to the notice.

15. Moreover, the impugned
orders refer to an inspection of the property
in question having been carried out by the
authorities, but there is nothing on record to
establish that the inspection was carried out
after giving notice to the petitioner.

16. Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Uttar
Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property)
Rules, 1997 provides that the Collector
may inspect the property after due notice to
parties to the instrument. The report of any
inspection which has not been conducted in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 7
(3) (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp
(Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, cannot
form the basis of an order for recovery of
deficient stamp duty.

17. Further, there appears to be no
provision in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
empowering
the
authorities
to
order
recovery of any deficiency in payment of
registration fee and in absence of any
statutory provision, the authorities cannot
passed any order for recovery of deficiency
of registration fee in proceedings instituted
under the India Stamp Act.

18. Without going into any further
factual details, as this Court has come to a
conclusion that the proceedings have been
instituted on the basis of the notices, which
are not sustainable in law, all the
proceedings held in furtherance of the two
notices dated 07.10.2022 and the orders
passed therein are unsustainable in law and
are liable to be set aside.
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19. Therefore, the petitions are
allowed. Both the notices dated 07.10.2022
issued to the petitioner alleging deficiency
in the stamp duty on the two sale-deeds
executed in favour of the petitioner are set
aside. Consequentially, the orders dated
24.01.2024 passed by the Additional
District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue),
District - Ambedkar Nagar in Case
Nos.1226 of 2022 and 1228 of 2022, under
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899, as also the orders dated 26.07.2024
passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Stamp), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in
Case Nos.581 of 2024 and 579 of 2024
under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp
Act and the recovery certificates issued in
furtherance of the aforesaid notices and
orders, are also set aside.

20. As the proceedings have been
set aside by this Court because of defect in
notice, a liberty is granted to the opposite
parties to issued fresh notices to the
petitioner in accordance with law, keeping
in view the observations made in this
judgment.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 266
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 24737 of 2023

Mahatam Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manu Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Munna Tiwari,Sri Sudhir Bharti,
Sri Aniruddha Chaturvedi

Civil Law - Land Revenue Act, 1996 -
Sections 48 & 49 - The Uttar Pradesh Land
Revenue (Survey and Record Operations)
Rules, 1978 - Area under record or survey
operation - An order passed by the
Assistant Record Officer in an appeal
under Rule 27(3) of the Survey Rules,
1978, against the order of the Survey Naib
Tahsildar
under Rule
26(1),
can
be
challenged by filing a statutory revision
under Section 219 of the Land Revenue
Act before the Record Officer. Such an
order of the Assistant Record Officer in
an appeal under Rule 27(3) cannot be
challenged in a revision before the
Commissioner. In matters related to
survey
and
record
operations,
the
Commissioner has no role. The scheme
of the Act with regard to revision of
maps and records as contained under
Chapter IV of the Land Revenue Act
does not contemplate any control over
the record operations by the Divisional
Commissioner. Under Section 49, it is
the Record Officer appointed by the
State Government who is in charge of
the record operations so long as the
area is under the record or the survey
operations upon notification having
been issued under Section 48. (Para
28)

Disposed off. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manu Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Munna
Tiwari, appearing along with Sri Aniruddha
Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Sri
Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for the State
respondents.