# UPLBEC2263, Ravi Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and others and 2002 (3)

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 669
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-05-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42381 of 2006
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uplbec2263-ravi-karan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-and-2002-3-41099
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-readwith
Stamp duty Act-Demand of additional
stamp value with penalty-on ground the
petitioner had raised/occupied much
excess area than the area given in sale
deed-held-totally
perverse
andmisconceived-stamp duty paid strict in
accordance
with
the
valuation
of
property mentioned in sale deed-found
sufficient-authority committed mistakes
apparent on the face of record-if excess
land occupied by the purchaser the same
could be taken back by the actual ownerbut the authorities have no role to playimpugned order quashed.

Held: Para 4

Under law, the stamp duty is leviable
only for value of the portion for which
the deed is executed. If any additional
area is occupied, legally or illegally by
the petitioner, the concerned authority
or person may take appropriate action
for getting back possession of such
portion which has not been purchased by
the petitioner. However, the stamp duty
on such portion, which has not been
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
purchased by the petitioner through the
sale deed, cannot be levied.

## Text

2 All] Smt. Bindu Singh V. State of U.P. and others
669
that is to say, a substantive appointment
and that the appointment cannot be treated
as a temporary appointment or an
appointment on a daily rated basis as held
by a division bench of this Court in 1999
(3)UPLBEC2263, Ravi Karan Singh vs.
State of U.P. and others and 2002 (3)
ESC 454, Sanjai Kumar vs. Dy.
Director General (NCC) Directorate,
U.P., Lucknow and others.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is
issued directing the respondents to treat
the petitioner as having been appointed in
a substantive capacity under the Dying in
Harness
Rules.
The
petitioner
is
consequently entitled to be treated as a
regular employee of the Nagar Nigam and
is entitled to the pay given to a regular
employee from the initial date of her
appointment. The arrears of salary would
be calculated by the respondents and
shall be paid to the petitioner within three
months from the date of the production of
a certified copy of this order.

13. It is made clear that even if the
post has not been sanctioned, the
respondents are still required to pay the
salary to the petitioner as payable to a
regular employee and take immediate
steps with the State Government for the
creation of the post of DOM which is of a
permanent character.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42381 of 2006

Smt. Bindu Singh

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Purwar
Sri Jamil Ali
Sri V.S. Parmar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.B. Yadav
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-readwith
Stamp duty Act-Demand of additional
stamp value with penalty-on ground the
petitioner had raised/occupied much
excess area than the area given in sale
deed-held-totally
perverse
andmisconceived-stamp duty paid strict in
accordance
with
the
valuation
of
property mentioned in sale deed-found
sufficient-authority committed mistakes
apparent on the face of record-if excess
land occupied by the purchaser the same
could be taken back by the actual ownerbut the authorities have no role to playimpugned order quashed.

Held: Para 4

Under law, the stamp duty is leviable
only for value of the portion for which
the deed is executed. If any additional
area is occupied, legally or illegally by
the petitioner, the concerned authority
or person may take appropriate action
for getting back possession of such
portion which has not been purchased by
the petitioner. However, the stamp duty
on such portion, which has not been
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
purchased by the petitioner through the
sale deed, cannot be levied.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The short point involved in this
writ petition in as to whether stamp duty
can be charged on any such property
which has been unauthorizedly and/or
illegally occupied by the petitioner, which
is beyond the area for which the sale deed
had been executed.

2. The brief facts of this case are that
the petitioner had, vide sale deed dated
17.10.2002, purchased a plot of land
measuring 36 meters, for a sum of Rs.1.50
lacs.
On
the
said
transaction,
the
petitioner had paid the requisite stamp
duty as per the existing circle rate fixed
by the Collector, according to which the
valuation of the property came to Rs.1.77
lacs. Up till this point there was no
dispute with regard to payment of stamp
duty. Subsequently in the year 2005, a
complaint was lodged to the effect that
the petitioner had occupied the adjoining
area and made certain constructions
beyond the portion of land which had
been purchased by him. An enquiry was
got conducted and a report had been
submitted that the petitioner had made
constructions on such land beyond the
area purchased by him. The petitioner
submitted his objections. Thereafter, the
Additional District Magistrate, (F & R),
Hamirpur, Respondent no.3 passed an
order dated 31.12.205 levying additional
stamp duty as well as penalty with interest
on the petitioner, after taking the area
which had been occupied by him illegally
also into consideration as the area for
which the sale deed had been executed.
Challenging the said order, the petitioner
filed an appeal before the Commissioner,
Chitrakoot Dham, Respondent no.2 which
was dismissed vide order dated 23.6.2006.
Aggrieved by the said orders, this writ
petition has been filed.

3. I have heard Sri Jamal Ali,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents. Pleadings have been
exchanged and with consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, this writ
petition is being disposed of at the
admission stage.

4. Under law, the stamp duty is
leviable only for value of the portion for
which the deed is executed. If any
additional area is occupied, legally or
illegally by the petitioner, the concerned
authority or person may take appropriate
action for getting back possession of such
portion which has not been purchased by
the petitioner. However, the stamp duty
on such portion, which has not been
purchased by the petitioner through the
sale
deed,
cannot
be
levied.
The
petitioner, having paid the stamp duty on
the sale deed for the area which had been
purchased by him, cannot now be
subjected to additional stamp duty for any
such area which has neither been
purchased by him nor any deed having
been executed for such area in his favour.
As such the orders passed by the
authorities below imposing additional
stamp duty, penalty and interest on the
petitioner for allegedly making illegal
constructions beyond the area of land
purchased by him, deserves to be
quashed.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition
stands allowed and the orders dated
23.6.2006 and 31.12.2005 passed by
2 All] Farooque Ahmad V. U.P.S.R.T.C. and another
671
Respondents no.2 and 3 respectively are
quashed.

6. The office is directed to issue a
certified copy of this order to the learned
counsel for the petitioner within 48 hours
on payment of usual charges.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SABHAJEET YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.48643 of 2006

Farooque Ahmad

...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Lucknow and another
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri S. Shekhar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.S. Chauhan
Sri B.S. Chauhan

Constitution of India Art. 226-Judicial
Review-scope
thereof-discussedpetitioner working as conductor carrying
passenger without ticket-investigation
team given signal to stop-but runawayno place and time of enquiry givenalongwith
enquiry
report-No
cause
notice issued-even during enquiry the
most relevant witness-the member of
inspection
team
not
examinedpunishment based on suspension and
speculation-held-can
not
survivedirection issued for reinstatement with
full salary.

Held: Para 9

Now applying the aforestated principle in
given facts and circumstances of the
case I find that respondent Corporation
has not led any evidence in support of
the charges levelled in the charge sheet
against the petitioner, as neither any
member
of
checking
squad
was
examined before inquiry officer and
made out any case against the petitioner
and
thereafter
he
was
given
any
opportunity to repel those charges. The
letter of Sri Bhagirathi Singh, who was
member of the checking squad, was also
not proved by any person before Inquiry
Officer. Even the said letter is taken as
true, even then it cannot be assumed
that since the bus was not stopped on
receipt of signal from checking squad,
therefore, it was carrying passengers
without ticket. In my opinion such fact
could be proved only after getting it
stopped by chasing and checking done
thereafter. But since no such steps were
taken by the checking squad, therefore,
it
cannot
be
assumed
merely
by
suspicion and speculation which cannot
take the place of proof, howsoever
strong such suspicion may be. Therefore,
the petitioner can not be held to be
guilty of the charges on mere suspicion
and speculations without any proof of
the same, accordingly the conclusion
drawn by Disciplinary Authority cannot
be sustained and the impugned order
dated 5.8.2006 is hereby quashed.
Case law discussed:
A.I.R. 1964 SC 364, (2001) 9 SCC 575, (2002)
7 SCC 142

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.)

1. By this petition petitioner has
challenged the order dated 5.08.2006
passed by respondent no.2 contained in
Annexure-6 of the writ petition, whereby
the petitioner has been removed from
service while working as bus conductor in
U.P.S.R.T.C.. It is stated that earlier also
the petitioner was removed from service
and he approached this Court by means of