# Mohan Kumar Varshney and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 635
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30971 of 2011
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohan-kumar-varshney-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42240
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Holding Act, 1966-Section 3 (8) readwith
Section 10 (2)-surplus land-land earlier
recorded with name of Father-died on
27.11.1983 and mother died on 17.04.87after name recorded as neutral heir-notice
issued-petitioner
replied
that
sale
transaction made after 24.01.71 as upto
84 the land was within ceiling limitignored
by
authority-held-illegal-land
recorded as Pond covered by water-not
within
definition
of
land-held-land
submerged
under
water
should
be
exempted-non consideration these aspect-

## Text

2 All] Mohan Kumar Varshney and others V. State of U.P. and others
635
XXIII Rule 3 of the proviso therein,
requires a compromise to the signed by
the parties and presented before the
Court.

9. In the instant case there is no
dispute that the compromise was not
signed by the petitioner and the records
also indicates the same impugned order,
therefore, incorrectly assumes that the
petitioner had signed the compromise.
The
authorization
through
the
vakalatanama has to be supplemented by
the actual compromise being signed by
the parties themselves.

10. In view of this wrong
assumption of fact and keeping in view
the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Banwari Lal (supra), the
order dated 29th July 2001 and the
subsequent
order
dated
25.3.2006
rejecting the misc. application of the
petitioner, cannot be sustained.

11. Accordingly the impugned
orders dated 29th July 2001 and
25.3.2006 are set aside. The matter
stands remitted to the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal to proceed to decide the
claim in accordance with law ignoring
the said compromise as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period six
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order. The writ
petition is allowed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30971 of 2011

Mohan Kumar Varshney and others

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinod Kumar Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Article
226Deficiency
of
Stamp
duty-Petitioner
submitted
reply
to
the
Notice-but
imposition of penalty without Notice on
opportunity-violation
of
principle
of
Natural Justice-unsustainable.

Held: Para 7

In view of the above, determination of
deficiency in excess of the amount
mentioned in the notice is clearly in
violation of the principles of the natural
justice and can not be sustained in law.
The authorities could not have travelled
beyond
the
show
cause
notice
in
determining the deficiency.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vinod Agrawal,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Nimai Das, learned Standing counsel.

2. Pleadings exchanged between the
parties have been perused and with the
consent of the parties the writ petition is
being finally decided.
636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

3. The challenge made in the writ
petition is to the order dated 24.12.2009
passed by the Collector Mahamaya
Nagar and the appellate order thereto
dated 20.4.2011 passed by the Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority.

4. The argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the authorities could not have determined
the deficiency in stamp duty in excess of
the amount shown in the show cause
notice.

5. The show cause notice is on
record. It requires the petitioner to
submit explanation as to why deficiency
in stamp duty of Rs. 8,37,000/- may not
be determined in connection with the
instrument dated 13.7.2005. It means that
the authorities were themselves satisfied
that
there
was
deficiency
of
Rs.
8,37,000/- and not more. The petitioner
as such was given opportunity only in
that regard. There was no notice to the
petitioner to submit reply as to why
penalty of Rs. 30,11,160/- may not be
imposed.

6. The show cause notice was never
modified and no corrigendum in that
regard was issued.

7.

In
view
of
the
above,
determination of deficiency in excess of
the amount mentioned in the notice is
clearly in violation of the principles of
the natural justice and can not be
sustained in law. The authorities could
not have travelled beyond the show
cause
notice
in
determining
the
deficiency.

8. Accordingly, the impugned
orders dated 24.12.2009 passed by the
Collector and 20.4.2011 passed by the
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority are
quashed and the matter is remanded to
the
Collector
for
determining
the
deficiency afresh keeping in view the
show
cause
notice
issued
to
the
petitioner.

9. The writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32251 of 1994

Bhuvnendra Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.S. Singh
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri M.K. Shukla
Sri Manu Khare
Sri Manish Singh
Sri H.O.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holding Act, 1966-Section 3 (8) readwith
Section 10 (2)-surplus land-land earlier
recorded with name of Father-died on
27.11.1983 and mother died on 17.04.87after name recorded as neutral heir-notice
issued-petitioner
replied
that
sale
transaction made after 24.01.71 as upto
84 the land was within ceiling limitignored
by
authority-held-illegal-land
recorded as Pond covered by water-not
within
definition
of
land-held-land
submerged
under
water
should
be
exempted-non consideration these aspect-