# State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Stamp & Reg Deptt. & Ors v. D.J., Lko & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 675
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1001905 of 2014
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-thru-prin-secy-stamp-reg-deptt-ors-v-d-j-lko-ors-54405
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

3 All. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Stamp & Reg Deptt. & Ors. Vs. D.J., Lko & Ors.
675
no such foundational illegality has been established. The sale proceedings were conducted
after due process and over a considerable period and the respondents had sufficient opportunity to
participate and raise objections. Therefore, the said judgments do not advance the case of
respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and are not applicable to the present controversy.

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the impugned orders suffer
from manifest illegality and jurisdictional error and the same are perverse and contrary to settled
legal principles. The confirmed auction sale in favour of the petitioner has been illegally set aside.

21. In view of reasons recorded above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

22. The impugned order dated 29.03.2006 passed by respondent No.1 and the order dated
04.04.2001 passed by respondent No.2 are hereby quashed.

23. The auction sale in favour of the petitioner, along with the sale certificate dated
26.05.1995 and consequential mutation, is hereby restored.

24. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 675
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1001905 of 2014

State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Stamp & Reg Deptt. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.J., Lko & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
The petitioner challenged the District Judge's order on execution of an arbitral award, particularly regarding
the levy of stamp duty based on market value at the time of the award.

Headnotes
A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 226, 227- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Section 36
& Indian Stamp Act, 1899- Section 31-Maintainability of writ petition-Challenge to-judicial
orders of civil court-Execution proceedings arising out of arbitral award-Determination of stamp
duty on sale deed-Whether based on market value as on date of award or date of execution-Two
execution orders challenged by single writ petition-Judicial orders of civil court not amenable to
writ jurisdiction under Art. 226, remedy lies under Art.227-Further, Separate writ petitions
required against separate execution orders even if decided by common judgment-Writ petition
dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to file under Art. 227.(Para 16 to 19)

Held
676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The court observed that recourse under Article226 is impermissible for assailing judicial orders of civil courts,
the appropriate jurisdiction being under Article 227. It was further observed that a composite writ petition
against multiple execution orders, even if arising from a common judgment, is procedurally untenable. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Residents Welfare Association, NOIDA Vs State of U.P.(2009) 14 SCC 716, Amit Kumar Gupta & Ors Vs State
of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secretary, Deptt. of Home Lko & Ors, Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs Chhabi Nath &
Ors; (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 423-referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

List of Keywords
Maintainability, Article 226, Article 227, Civil court orders, Execution Proceedings, Arbitral award, Stamp duty,
Market value, Date of Execution, Common judgment, Multiple orders, Registration of sale deed, Jurisdiction,
Non-maintainable.

Case Arising from
Civil jurisdiction: WRIT-C No.- 1001905 of 2014 23.03.2026
 State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp & Registration Deptt. & Ors. Vs. District Judge Lucknow
& Ors
From the judgment and order dated 23.03.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Petitioner(s)
C.S.C.
Advs. for Respondent(s)
Surya Kant, Himanshu Hemant Gupta Udit Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner - State and Sri Sudeep Seth, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 &
3.

2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated
18.11.2013 passed by learned District Judge Lucknow in Execution Case Nos.63 & 64 of 2011
contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

3. The writ petition has been filed in exercise of power under Article 226 Constitution of
India.

4. Factual matrix of the case is that two agreements to sell were executed between the
respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Sri Roop Chand in respect of half portion of khasra plot Nos.416 and
417, Mohibulla Ward, Faizullaganj, Lucknow on 06.04.1974. Out of total sale consideration of Rs.
40,000/-, an advance amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid to Sri Roop Chand.

5. The land having been acquired by the State Govt. for L.D.A. project but neither
improvement made on the spot nor possession taken over. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 resorted to
3 All. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Stamp & Reg Deptt. & Ors. Vs. D.J., Lko & Ors.
677
arbitration proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator, Mohd. Tariq Khan, and requested for issuance of
direction to the legal heirs of Mr. Roop Chand to execute sale deeds in respect of half portion of
Khasra Plot Nos. 416 and 417. A compromise was entered into between the parties that in case land
was not released from acquisition, then respondent Nos.2 and 3 would be entitled to get their
advance back along with usual bank interest but in case land was released by State Govt./LDA,
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would pay Rs.10,50,000/- to Gopal Das, s/o Late Roop Chand and Rs.
10,50,000/-to rest of legal heirs of Late Roop Chand. The compromise was verified before the
Arbitrator and award was made in terms of the said compromise.

6. After release of the land from acquisition proceedings u/S 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning
and Development Act, 1973, since respondent Nos.4 to 8 failed to execute the sale deed,
respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed two Execution Cases bearing No. 63 and 64 of 2011 before learned
District Judge for execution of award u/S 36 of 1996 Act.

7. On 18.11.2013 after hearing decree holder and the DGC (Civil) on the point of affixation
of stamp duty on the sale deed to be executed and after considering the report of Sub Registrar,
Lucknow, as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Residents
Welfare Association, NOIDA Vs State of U.P. and other judgments, Ld. District Judge recorded a
finding that as parties to the award arrived at a compromise and award delivered on 20.12.2008 for
sale of property. Subject matter of proposed sale deed for a total sale consideration of Rs.
21,00,000/-, stamp duty should be levied on the market value of property that existed on the date
20.12.2008 since delay in registration of sale deed was not caused intentionally on behalf of decree
holder and the delay had occurred only on the part of respondents and due to land previously
acquired by LDA.

8. On 26.11.2013 a letter sent by District Judge to Sub Registrar, intimating the order dated
18.11.2013 passed in the Execution Case about stamp duty on market value leviable as on date of
award. On 28.11.2013 Sub Registrar sent a report to the effect that stamp duty would be determined
on the market value existing on the date of execution of the instrument. Since report dated
28.11.2013 of the Sub Registrar was in teeth of the judicial order dated 18.11.2013, Ld. District
Judge directed Sub Registrar either to appear in person or get the sale deed registered as per Court
Order 18.11.2013 charging stamp duty in terms with the said order, on failure to comply the order,
Sub Registrar was required to show cause as to why the matter should not be referred to Hon'ble
High Court for initiating contempt proceedings.

9. On 12.12.2013 the Sub Registrar intimated the Ld. District Judge about market value of
property as on 20.12.2008 and the stamp duty payable thereon to the extent of Rs. 95,89,230/-. It
was further intimated that the jurisdiction to determine proper stamp duty vests in Collector u/S 31
of the Indian Stamp Act; as per various authorities of Hon'ble High Court and Apex Court, it is a
settled principle that the stamp duty determination is made on the basis of market value assessed on
the date of execution of the instrument. However, the Deputy Registrar conveniently side tracked
the Apex Court Judgment in the case of Resident Welfare Association, NOIDA V State of U.P.,
2009 (14) SCC 716 (Pg 35).
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. The Sub Registrar further apprised that pursuant to order dated 18.11.2013 of the Ld.
District Judge, instrument had not been presented for registration; in future, if instrument was
presented, same would be registered without any delay as per the order of Ld District Judge.
Administrative Officer of the District Judge, Judgeship, Lucknow executed the sale deed, duly
presented for registration and the sale deed was duly registered. Hence, order dated 18.11.2013
implemented and given effect to.

11. Submission of learned Additional CSC for the petitioner - State is that the stamp duty
payable on the instrument is on the market value when the instrument is registered. He submitted
that the District Judge has committed manifest error of law in passing the impugned order,
therefore, the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

12. He next submitted that the impugned order has been passed in two execution cases by
means of common judgment, therefore, the writ petition challenging the same is maintainable and
cannot be dismissed on the ground that two orders of execution has been challenged in one petition.

13. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 submitted that two
execution cases decided by means of common judgment cannot be challenged by means of one writ
petition. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon an order in the case of Amit Kumar
Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secretary, Deptt. of Home Lko and
others; Special Appeal No.1 of 2020 decided on 03.02.2026.

14. He next submitted that the order of Civil Court is not amenable in writ petition in
exercise of power under Article 226 Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, he placed
reliance upon a judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and
others; (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 423 and submitted that the writ petition can only be filed
in exercise of power under Article 227 Constitution of India.

15. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record as well as law reports cited by learned Senior Counsel for
respondent Nos.2 & 3.

16. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, relevant portion of the judgments
relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 are being quoted below:

 a) Amit Kumar Gupta and others (Supra):

 "2. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, we find that the judgment impugned
in special appeal, is a common judgment. Several writ petitions including Writ Petition No.14066
(S/S) of 2019 were decided by it. While challenging the judgment, petitioners of all the writ
petitions joined together and became appellants herein. An application was filed along with the
appeal for permitting the appellants to prefer a single appeal against the common judgment passed
in several writ petitions. It is informed that pleadings had been exchanged only in Writ Petition
No.14066 (S/S) of 2019 therefore, this procedure was adopted by the appellants on their own or on
the advice, as the case may be.
3 All. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Stamp & Reg Deptt. & Ors. Vs. D.J., Lko & Ors.
679
 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties including the Standing Counsel, we
find ourselves unable to accept this contention. The practice and procedure settled in this Court is
that if there are several writ petitions which are decided by a common judgment then if a challenge
is to be raised by way of an intra-court appeal, separate appeals have to be filed under Chapter
VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. There is no such provisions in the Rules of
1952 which permits filing of a single appeal in respect of all the petitioners of all the writ petitions
which may have been decided by a common judgment. This may also lead to several practical
difficulties based on the array of parties in separate writ petitions as also pleadings etc. Moreover,
in this case, though an application for permitting filing of a single appeal was filed but the same
was never considered. No such rule or law has been shown under which such an application could
have been preferred. While we appreciate and empathize with the predicament being faced by the
appellants herein, we are unable to review our judgment and make it applicable to all the
appellants of the writ petitions which were decided by a common judgment dated 27.11.2019. The
joining of the other writ petitioners as appellants in this appeal itself was impermissible.
Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that to balance the equities and to prevent a situation of
irreparable loss to the appellants, it needs to be clarified that the appeal i.e. Special Appeal No.1 of
2020 and judgment dated 28.01.2023 passed herein, review/modification of which has been sought,
shall be treated as an appeal and judgment which has only been passed in respect of the petitioners
of Writ Petition No.14066 of 2019, irrespective of the fact that there were other appellants also
who were not petitioners in the said petition but were petitioners in the connected matters, with
liberty, as far as otherwise permissible in law, to the remaining appellants i.e. those who were not
petitioners in Writ Petition No.14066 (S/S) of 2019, to prefer separate appeals against judgment of
the writ court dated 27.11.2019 qua their writ petitions."

 b) Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others (Supra):

 "27. 27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a
writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view [Radhey Shyam v.
Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616] of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie
against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from
Article 226.

 29. Accordingly, we answer the question referred as follows:

 29.1. Judicial orders of the civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution.

 29.2. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226.

 29.3. Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC
675] is overruled."

17. On perusal of aforesaid judgments, it is apparent on the face of it that if there are two
orders in any case and decided by common judgment, the writ petition can be filed separately as
per order in the case of Amit Kumar Gupta and others (Supra). The judgment in the case of
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Radhey Shyam and another (Supra), clearly demonstrates that the orders of civil court can only
be challenged in writ petition in exercise of power under Article 227 Constitution of India.

18. In view of reasons assigned above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground that two execution order have been challenged in the present writ petition in exercise of
power under Article 226 Constitution of India. The writ petition is also not maintainable in view of
challenge of civil court's order in exercise of power under Article 226 Constitution of India. It can
only be challenged in exercise of power under Article 227 Constitution of India.

19. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file separate
writ petitions challenging the orders passed in Execution Case Nos.63 & 64 of 2011 in exercise of
power under Article 227 Constitution of India.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 680
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No 252 of 2026

Kallayya Pattadamath @ Akshay Pattadamath ....Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the order of trial court framing charges against the revisionist was legally
sustainable in light of alleged non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed u/ss. 262
and 263 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, specifically concerning the right of the accused to seek
discharge and to be afforded an effective opportunity of hearing prior to framing of charges.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - ss. 261, 262(2), 263, 341 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 - ss. 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) - Information Technology Act, 2000 - s. 66D - Framing of
charge - Discharge application - Opportunity of hearing - Non compliance of statutory provisions
- Validity of - The instant case arises out of an FIR lodged on 30.06.2025, wherein the informant
alleged that he was induced by an unknown person, through communications on Facebook
Messenger and WhatsApp, to purchase banana plants, and in furtherance thereof, was deceived
into transferring a substantial sum of ₹29,25,000/- into various bank accounts provided by the
fraudster - During investigation, it was found that the revisionist was allegedly in contact with
the main accused and certain bank account holders, and is stated to have facilitated their
introduction, thereby enabling the transaction of defrauded amount, however, it was not alleged
that the revisionist himself received any part of the said amount - Subsequently, the trial court,
by order dated 03.01.2026, proceeded to frame charges against the revisionist under the
relevant provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Information Technology Act, without
affording him an opportunity to seek discharge or granting a proper hearing at the stage of
charge, leading to filing of instant criminal revision challenging the legality of said order.