# Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar & Another v. Union - **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 911 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-07-30 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47233 of 2009 - **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani, Dilip Gupta - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradesh-v-s-sardarshahar-another-v-union-41712 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 2 All] Pradeep Kumar V. Union of India and others 911 9. He has further relied upon paragraph 16 to 19 of the said judgment to state that the respondent no. 2 could not determine the deficiency in stamp duty on the date of execution of the sale deed without any material on record and also he could not determine the deficiency by recording that the future utility of the land was for residential purpose and therefore it has to be treated as non agricultural. 10. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have substance inasmuch as there is no cogent evidence referred to in the impugned orders to enable the authorities to charge stamp duty of the land in question as non agricultural land. There is also no evidence on record to indicate that on the date when the land in question was purchased by the petitioner it was non agricultural. In fact report of the Tehsildar in the year 2001 has clearly stated that two years back i.e. in the year 1999 the land was being used for agricultural purpose. Admittedly the portion purchased by the petitioner is half portion of the plot in question and there is no construction existing over the land in question. Consequently the respondents have committed an error in determining the deficiency of stamp duty on the future utility of the land which was earlier admittedly used as agricultural land. The impugned orders have been passed without any basis and even on the reports available on record the land in question was agricultural in the year 1997 when it was purchased by the petitioner. 11. The impugned orders being based on no material or evidence are arbitrary and liable to be set aside. The impugned order dated 30.5.2001, 18.11.2002 and 3.6.2003 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. 12. No order is passed as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J. THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47233 of 2009 Pradeep Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kamal Singh Yadav Counsel for the Respondents: Sri J.K.Tiwari A.S.G.I. C.S.C. (2009/41192) Sri M.C.Tripathi Constitution of India-Act 226-Medical Practise-Right to held, not absolute Restrict by Chief Medical Officer on unregistered unqualified practitioners, held, reasonableDegree/diploma of Ayurvedic Ratna by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag-not recognized by Indian Medicine Control Council-Act-1970-question squarely covered by Apex Court judgement in 2009 (5) SCC 206. Held Para 4 and 5 The question whether Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad has the authority to award medical qualifications after 1967, has been considered by this Court and the Supreme Court. In the judgement dated 1.6.2010 in Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar & Another Vs. Union of India & others 912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 [MANU/SC/0408/2010] the Supreme Court has held that the degrees awarded by Sammelan after 1967 are not recognized under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970, to authorize medical practice in Indian Medicine. The Bihar Indian Medicine Board has no authority to grant registration on such degree, to allow a person to practice in other States including in Uttar Pradesh, vide Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctors Association Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra [JT 2009 (5) SCC 206 : MANU/SC/0312/2009] and Nawab Khan Vs. State of U.P. [(1999) 2 AWC 1150 (DB)]. The question raised are squarely covered by judgement of the Supreme Court. Case Law Discussed: 2004 (2) AWC 967; 2000(5) SCC 80; MANU/SC/0408/2010; 2009 (5) SC 206; 1999 (2) AWC 1150. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.) 1. List is revised. No one appears for the petitioner. Sri J.K. Tiwari, learned standing counsel appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has prayed for directions to quash the notice dated 14.8.2009 issued by the Chief Medical Officer directing unregistered and unqualified medical practitioner to produce their Degrees and Registration and to establish that they are practicing medicine on the basis of their valid qualifications. The directions were issued on 28.1.2004 in Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. [2004 (2) AWC 967] in pursuance of the order of this Court to enforcing directions issued by the Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi Vs. State of U.P. [(2000) 5 SCC 80]. 3. The petitioner claims to be registered with State Ayurvedic & Unani Chikitsa Parishad, Bihar in pursuance to the Degree of Ayurvedic Ratna, 1986 from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad 4. The question whether Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad has the authority to award medical qualifications after 1967, has been considered by this Court and the Supreme Court. In the judgment dated 1.6.2010 in Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar & Another Vs. Union of India & others [MANU/SC/0408/2010] the Supreme Court has held that the degrees awarded by Sammelan after 1967 are not recognized under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970, to authorize medical practice in Indian Medicine. The Bihar Indian Medicine Board has no authority to grant registration on such degree, to allow a person to practice in other States including in Uttar Pradesh, vide Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctors Association Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra [JT 2009 (5) SCC 206 : MANU/SC/0312/2009] and Nawab Khan Vs. State of U.P. [(1999) 2 AWC 1150 (DB)]. 5. The question raised are squarely covered by judgment of the Supreme Court. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58855 of 2007 Sri Ram Manohar Kapoor ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Yogish Kumar Saxena Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C.