# Om Prakash Umar v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 818
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-03-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3933 of 2012
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/om-prakash-umar-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42610
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Indian Stamp Act, 1899-Section 17,
2(14)- Demand of Stamp duty-document
executed before notary-by which-rights
and title given to petitioner-relating to a
landlord-for
consideration
of
Rs.
50,000/-held
within
definition
of
document under Section 2(14)-demand
of stamp duty-proper.

Held: Para-9
In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances,
in
my
opinion,
the
authorities below have not erred in law
in
holding
the
document
dated
14.12.2009 as chargeable to stamp duty
and to direct for realizing stamp duty on
the
market
value
of
the
property
purported to have been transferred
therein.

## Text

818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
the beginning of the 18th anniversary of
that day."

12. A Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Smt. Sumitra Dhulia Vs.
Director of Education and others, 2010
(28) LCD 1730, held as under:-

The object of giving benefit of extension
of service beyond the prescribed age of
superannuation to the teachers upto end of
the academic session i.e. 30th June
uniformally, without any reference of
individual
case,
except
in
case
of
unsatisfactory work and failing health, is to
maintain the continuity in teaching work in
educational institutions. In order to ensure
that the students do not suffer, on account of
the change of teachers in the middle of the
academic session, the teachers teaching
regular subjects are given extension of
service upto the end of academic session
commonly known as sessions benefit. The
teaching of any subject and the incomplete
academic session, are the twin requirements
for allowing the benefit of extension of
service to such teachers. If any of these
requirements are missing, the teacher is
not getting the benefit of the policy, to
continue
beyond
the
age
of
superannuation."

13. Keeping in view the abovesaid
facts, the position of law as well as the fact of
the present case that the date of birth of the
petitioner is 01.07.1951 as well as Rule 29 of
the Rules, I do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned retirement notice
dated 13.03.2013 (Annexure No. 1) passed
by O.P.No. 3/Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Sitapur by which the petitioner is sought to
be retired from service after attaining the age
of superannuation on 30.06.2013.

14. Further, the petitioner cannot
derive any benefit from the law as laid
down by this Court in the case of Ram
Lal Prasad (Supra) in view of the facts
state hereinabove.

15. In the result, writ petition lacks
merit and is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3933 of 2012

Om Prakash Umar
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.N. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Indian Stamp Act, 1899-Section 17,
2(14)- Demand of Stamp duty-document
executed before notary-by which-rights
and title given to petitioner-relating to a
landlord-for
consideration
of
Rs.
50,000/-held
within
definition
of
document under Section 2(14)-demand
of stamp duty-proper.

Held: Para-9
In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances,
in
my
opinion,
the
authorities below have not erred in law
in
holding
the
document
dated
14.12.2009 as chargeable to stamp duty
and to direct for realizing stamp duty on
the
market
value
of
the
property
purported to have been transferred
therein.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)
2 All] Om Prakash Umar Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
819

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Pleadings have been exchanged
and, therefore, the writ petition is being
finally decided.

3. A document before the Notary
was executed on 14.12.2009 by Mahadeo
and others by which they withdrew their
rights on the abadi land measuring 80ft x
70 ft and transferred them in favour of the
petitioner
for
a
consideration
of
Rs.50,000/- only. The aforesaid document
was written on a stamp paper of Rs.150/-
only.
The
Additional
Commissioner
(Stamp) vide order dated 18.4.2011 held
the above document to be an instrument
of conveyance and assessing its market
value determined the deficiency in stamp
duty and imposed a penalty also. The
appellate authority has affirmed the
aforesaid order vide its order dated
25.11.2011.

4. The above two order dated
25.11.2011 and 18.4.2011 are under
challenge in this writ petition.

5. The submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
aforesaid
document
is
simply
a
compromise. It is not registered and,
therefore, does not purports to transfer
any rights in favour of the petitioner.
Therefore, he cannot be made to pay
stamp duty on it.

6. Section 17 of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act")
provides that
all
instruments
chargeable with duty and executed by any
person in the India shall be stamped
before or at the time of execution.
Therefore, stamp duty on an instrument is
payable at the time of execution of the
instrument. The moment an instrument is
executed stamp duty is payable on it. The
validity of its execution or its nonregistration has nothing to do with its
execution and consequently the payment
of stamp duty.

7. An instrument as defined under
Section 2(14) of the Act includes every
document and record by which any right
or liability is, or purports to be created,
transferred,
limited,
extended,
extinguished or recorded. The above
document executed before the Notary,
with whatever name it may be called,
creates rights in the land in favour of the
petitioners, after extinguishing those of
the Mahadeo and others therein. It is,
therefore, undoubtedly, an instrument as
defined under Section 2(14) of the Act.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, as the aforesaid document
dated 14.12.2009 is an 'instrument' within
the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act
and its execution is not denied, it is
chargeable to stamp duty. The validity of
the transfer made in favour of the
petitioner is not a relevant criteria so as to
exempt it for payment of stamp duty as it
would be antithesis of Section 17 read
with Section and 2(14) of the Act.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances,
in
my
opinion,
the
authorities below have not erred in law in
holding the document dated 14.12.2009 as
chargeable to stamp duty and to direct for
realizing stamp duty on the market value
of the property purported to have been
transferred therein.

10. The writ petition is devoid of
merit and is dismissed.
---------
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KALIMULLAH KHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ
Petition No. 11846 of 2013

Saroj Devi and Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.
Sri M. Shahanshah Khan

Constitution of India, Art. 226- habeas
corpus petition-by mother on behalf of
two minor children of two years and
other-one of five months-respondent no.
4 and 5 being father and grand mother of
children-considering welfare of those
children-petitioner no. 1 allow to take
custody of those-infant liberty given to
the Respondent no. 4 and 5 to get the
company of those children from 10 to 2
pm on first Sunday of every monthpetition allowed.

Held: Para-5
Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are directed to
hand over Prithwi Singh petitioner no.2
and Priya Singh petitioner no.3 to the
custody of their mother Smt. Saroj Devi
petitioner no.1 who is directed to take
full care and protection of the children.
She is at liberty to seek maintenance for
herself
and
for
her
children
from
respondent no.4 in accordance with law.
At this stage respondent nos. 4 and 5
have handed over the children ( both the
corpus) to their mother petitioner no.1 in
the
court
itself.
Fact
is
observed
accordingly.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kalimullah Khan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for
respondent nos. 4 and 5 and perused the
record.

2. This writ of habeas corpus under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by Smt. Saroj Devi
petitioner no.1 with the averments that her
marriage was solemnized with respondent
no.4 Rajesh Singh on 9.2.2010 and from
this wedlock two issues were born.
Prithwi Singh petitioner no.2 is aged
about 2 years and Priya Singh petitioner
no.3 is aged about 5 month. Respondent
no.4 and his mother respondent no.5 Smt.
Aruna
Devi
adopted
torturing
and
practicing cruelty upon petitioner no.1
Smt. Saroj Devi in connection with
demand of dowry. The relation between
the parties interse became strained. The
climax is that on fine morning respondent
nos.4 and 5 forcibly ousted the petitioner
no.1 from their house after snatching
aforesaid two minor children from her
lap. She was compelled to leave the house
of her in laws. She lodged an F.I.R. under
section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition
Act against the respondent nos. 4 and 5
which is pending trial. As a matter of
counter
blast
respondent
no.4,
the
husband of petitioner no.1 filed a criminal
complaint case against petitioner no.1 and
her entire maternal family under section
452, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 I.P.C. wherein
process under section 204 Cr.P.C. was
issued on 15.9.2012. The petitioner
visited several time to the house of
respondent no.4 to see her minor children
but she was not allowed by respondent
no.4 and 5 to meet her children. She ran
from pillar to post seeking police
intervention and protection but all in vain.
Contrary to it respondent no.4 threatened