# Vinod Kumari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1441
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-08
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 5832 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-kumari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51708
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Penal
Code,1860Sections
498,504-Petitioners
sought
protection from family members, claiming
threats
and
intereference
in
their
marriage-Petitioner no.1 was previously
married and had not obtained a divorcePetitioner
no.
2
began
a
live-in
relationship with petitioner no. 1 after
they met in Noida 2022 -The court that
petitioner
1
had
no
legal
right
to
protection while living in an adulterous
relationship without obtaining a divorcethe
court
emphasized
that
such
relationships in contravention of Islamic
law and the Indian Penal Code(sections
494,495) cannot be considered a live-in
relationship akin to marriage-The writ
petition was dismissed as the court found
no enforceable legal right in favor of the
petitioners for protection.(Para 1to 15)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Vinod Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1441
demand notices, they are free to vacate the
property as they have not been forced to get
their lease extended. They have voluntarily
remained in the property on the basis of
extension of lease as aforesaid on the basis
of conditions mentioned therein. The
Central Government being the lessor has
determined the value for the land it owns in
the Lucknow Cantonment in Zone-I and it
has offered that land on lease on conditions
determined by it on the basis of market
value of adjoining land in the city. The
petitioners being lessees are free to accept
or reject the offer but they cannot place
conditions on such offer to their liking only
on the basis of alleged undue hardship
being faced by them.

27. This Court finds no good
ground to invoke the concept of Welfare
State and Article 14 of the Constitution of
India in such a matter where the dispute
between
the
petitioners
and
the
Government is regarding fixation of lease
rent of 1,46,362 sq. feet land regarding
which the 90 years lease of the petitioners
has come to an end and the Government
has fixed the new rate of lease rent on
relevant considerations, which do not suffer
from wednesbury unreasonableness. On the
contrary, continuance or extension of lease
of Government lands at the old rates of
lease rent fixed more than 90 years ago
would be against the interest of the public
at large and that would be arbitrary and
unreasonable.

28. In view of the observations
made herein above, we find no good
ground to entertain this petition. Hence, the
instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1441
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ-C No. 5832 of 2024

Vinod Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jeet Bahadur Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Authority rejected the application of the
petitioner- seeking interest on the delayed
payment of the refund of stamp duty - order for
refund was passed on September 19, 2013authority concerned refunded this amount only
on December 5, 2023- State has no power to
hold on the money -it has taken without any
authority of law -amount that has been collected
is dehors the law.

Writ Petition disposed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel
for the State

2. This is a writ petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
wherein the order dated January 24, 2024
passed
by
the
Additional
District
Magistrate (Finance/Revenue), Aligarh is
under challenge.

3. By the order impugned, the
authority concerned rejected the application
of the petitioner seeking interest on the
delayed payment of the refund of stamp duty
that has been deposited by the petitioner.

4. On perusal of the facts, it is
clear that the order for refund of the
1442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount of Rs.5,35,454/- was passed on
September
19,
2013.
However,
the
authority concerned refunded this amount
only on December 5, 2023. The stand taken
by the respondent authorities is that there is
no provision in the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 for payment of interest on refund of
excess stamp duty that has been collected
by the revenue. In light of the same,
counsel for the respondent submitted that
no interest is payable even if there is
lackadaisical approach by the authorities
in returning of the refund.

5. The stand of the revenue is
rejected outrightly as the State has no
power to hold on the money that it has
taken without any authority of law.
Article 265 of the Constitution of India
clearly provides that no tax can be
collected without authority of law and
any amount that has been collected is
dehors the law and is required to be
returned to the person concerned. As a
natural corollary, the time for which the
amount was illegally detained by the
Government,
is
required
to
be
compensated for by the Government by
way of payment of interest thereon. There
is
no
requirement
of
any
specific
provision for the payment of interest in
such circumstances. In light of the same,
I am of the view that the authority
concerned is required to pay interest for
the delay in refund.

6. Accordingly, the authority
concerned is directed to pay interest at
the rate of 5 per cent from October 19,
2013 (one month after passing of the
order directing the refund) till December
5, 2023 (when the refund was made). The
said amount should be paid by the
authority concerned within six weeks from
date.
7. With the above observations, the
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1442
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Writ -C No. 6350 of 2024

Gajala & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Umesh Chandra Prajapati

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Penal
Code,1860Sections
498,504-Petitioners
sought
protection from family members, claiming
threats
and
intereference
in
their
marriage-Petitioner no.1 was previously
married and had not obtained a divorcePetitioner
no.
2
began
a
live-in
relationship with petitioner no. 1 after
they met in Noida 2022 -The court that
petitioner
1
had
no
legal
right
to
protection while living in an adulterous
relationship without obtaining a divorcethe
court
emphasized
that
such
relationships in contravention of Islamic
law and the Indian Penal Code(sections
494,495) cannot be considered a live-in
relationship akin to marriage-The writ
petition was dismissed as the court found
no enforceable legal right in favor of the
petitioners for protection.(Para 1to 15)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Lata Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.. (2006) 5 SCC
475