# Virendra Chaudhari v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 615 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-04-26 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30965 of 2010 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-chaudhari-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41941 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote C.S.C. Sri Anuj Kumar U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-Section 198(3) Cancellation of Patta-granted about 200 hectares of Pasture Land-objection that Public utility land can not be subject ## Text 2 All] Virendra Chaudhari V. State of U.P. and others 615 including the daughter-in-law in the definition of 'family'. Otherwise, the definition to that extent, prima facie, would be irrational and arbitrary. The State, therefore, to consider this aspect and take appropriate steps so that a widowed daughter-in-law like a widowed daughter, is also entitled for consideration by way of compassionate appointment, if other criteria is satisfied." 10. It is therefore clear that the Full Bench of this Court has not found any error in the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Basic Shiksha Adhikai, (supra). The Full Bench only proceeded to make a recommendation to the State Government to amend the definition of family so as to include the widowed daughter-in-law within the ambit of family. 11. It is not the case of the petitioner that such amendment in the definition of 'family' has been carried out till date. The suggestion made by the Full Bench, it appears that has not found favour with the State Government. The law as it stands today cannot be by passed by this Court merely because certain suggestions had been made by the Full Bench for amending the definition of family. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that widowed daughter-in-law is not within the definition of family for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground, in view of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basic Shiksha Adhikari (supra). 13. This Court will not interfere with the impugned order inasmuch as any order to the contrary will result in an illegal order of appointment in favour of the petitioner being perpetuated, which can never be the outcome of a judgment of the writ Court. 14. So far as the divorced daughter-inlaw is concerned, the issue stands decided under the judgement of this Court in the case of Akhilesh Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2006 (3) ESC 1865 (All). 15. Writ petition is dismissed with the observations made. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30965 of 2010 Virendra Chaudhari ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Anupam Kulshrestha Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. Indian Stamp Act-1899-Art-5- Schedule 1B-Charge of Stamp Duty-instrument being "agreement to sale" without possessiononly on half of consideration stamp dutypayable additional demand of stamp duty treating sale on full considerationmanifestly erred in determining the sufficiency of stamp duty. Held: Para 3 Admittedly the instrument in question is an agreement to transfer 2 Acres 50 Decimals of land without possession for a sale consideration of Rs.32,000/-. Therefore, in accordance with Article 5(b1) of Schedule 1-B of the Act, stamp duty 616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 on half of the aforesaid sale consideration i.e. Rs.16,000/- is payable as a deed of conveyance. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the impugned order dated 7.8.2007, passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Mathura and the revisional order dated 29.3.2010, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, determining the deficiency in stamp duty treating the instrument dated 4.7.2010 as a sale-deed. 2. The submission of the petitioner is that the aforesaid instrument is an agreement of sale of immovable property without possession and therefore, the authorities have erred in charging the stamp duty on the same treating it to be a saledeed. On an agreement or a memorandum of agreement stamp duty in accordance with Article 5 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act is payable. Sub clause (b-1) of Article 5 of Schedule 1-B of the Act provides that an agreement relating to sale of immovable property where possession is not delivered shall be chargeable to stamp duty as a conveyance No.23 clause (a) on half of the amount of consideration as set forth in the agreement. In other words, it provides for charging stamp duty on half of the amount of sale consideration set out in the agreement. 3. Admittedly the instrument in question is an agreement to transfer 2 Acres 50 Decimals of land without possession for a sale consideration of Rs.32,000/-. Therefore, in accordance with Article 5(b-1) of Schedule 1-B of the Act, stamp duty on half of the aforesaid sale consideration i.e. Rs.16,000/- is payable as a deed of conveyance. 4. The authorities below as such have manifestly erred in determining the deficiency in stamp duty on the aforesaid instrument as a sale deed on the market value. Accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be quashed. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 7.8.2007, passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Mathura and the revisional order dated 29.3.2010, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra are quashed. 6. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to cost. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48859 of 2007 Ram Naumee ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondent : C.S.C. Sri Anuj Kumar U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-Section 198(3) Cancellation of Patta-granted about 200 hectares of Pasture Land-objection that Public utility land can not be subject