# Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1243
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-02
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vivek-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44652
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 56 (1A) - Stay Application u/s 56
(1-A) in Appeal - disputed amount to be
paid is - 1/3rd of deficiency assessed along
with interest u/s 40 (1-A)-and not 1/3rd of
penalty imposed which will be excessivewill become difficult to file Appeal. Proviso
to
move
stay
Application
in
Appeal-
misinterpreted.

Writ Petition disposed of (E-9)

## Text

3 All. Vivek Kumar Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
1243
depth of legal knowledge, Court craft and
conduct, manner and purity demonstrated
by an Advocate in his practice at the Bar,
not only towards the client but to the
Court also and similar other aspects.

20. We do not intend to delve into
matter further to the self-assessed merit of
petitioner as it may prejudice his matter in
future also but so far as the present writ
petition is concerned, we are satisfied that
there is no illegality in the procedure
followed by Court in designating 75
'Senior Advocates' by notification in
question
and
apparently
there
is
substantial compliance of rules, therefore,
no interference is called for.

21. Writ petition is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1243

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ C No.- 23031 of 2019

Vivek Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anjali Sinha, Sri Krishna Kant Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law-The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 56 (1A) - Stay Application u/s 56
(1-A) in Appeal - disputed amount to be
paid is - 1/3rd of deficiency assessed along
with interest u/s 40 (1-A)-and not 1/3rd of
penalty imposed which will be excessivewill become difficult to file Appeal. Proviso
to
move
stay
Application
in
Appeal-
misinterpreted.

Writ Petition disposed of (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
with a prayer that the recovery citation
issued on 10.6.2019 by the Tehsildar,
Tehsil
-
Anupshahar,
District
-
Bulandshahar, in pursuance of the order
dated 30.5.2019 passed by the District -
Magistrate, District - Bulandshahar, in
Case No. D201911170000833 (State of
U.P. vs. Vivek Kumar) under Section
33/47A of Indian Stamp Act 1899, passed
on 20.4.2010 be quashed.

2. The learned counsel for the
petitioner assailed the recovery certificate
on the ground that the amount which was
payable by the petitioner under order
dated 30.5.2019 could not be made
payable by the petitioner as it was
excessively high. He submits that not
only was the deficiency of stamp
calculated wrongly but the penalty of Rs.
18,00,000/- was calculated in a most
malafide manner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further stated that when he had filed the
appeal before the respondent no. 2, the
Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Meerut
Division, Meerut, then the recovery ought
to be stayed. He further submits that the
Stay Application as is conceived under
Section 56(1A) of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899, could not be filed by him as the
Appellate Court was demanding 1/3rd of
the total amount which was recoverable
under the order dated 30.5.2019.
1244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
referred to Section 56 of the Indian Stamp
Act,
1899,
alongwith
all
its
U.P.
Amendments and stated that the proviso
under which a Stay Application had to be
moved was being misinterpreted by the
Appellate Court and the Appellate Court
was demanding 1/3rd of the total payable
amount under the order passed by the
Collector on 30.5.2019, alongwith the
Stay Application. Since, at this juncture,
learned counsel referred to Section 56 of
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the same is
being reproduced here as under:-

"56. Control of, and statement
of case to, Chief Controlling Revenue
authority. - (1) The powers exercisable
by a Collector under Chapter IV and
Chapter V and under clause (a) of the first
proviso to Section 26 shall in all cases be
subject to the control of the Chief
Controlling Revenue authority.

[(1-A)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained
in
any
other
provisions of this Act, any person
including the Government aggrieved by
an order of the Collector under Chapter
IV, Chapter V or under Clause (a) of the
first proviso to Section 26 may, within
sixty days from the date of receipt of such
order, prefer an appeal against such order
to
the
Chief
Controlling
Revenue
Authority, who shall, after giving the
parties a reasonable opportunity of being
heard consider the case and pass such
order thereon as he thinks just and proper
and the order so passed shall be final:

Provided that no application
for stay or recovery of any disputed
amount
of
stamp
duty
including
interest thereon or penalty shall be
entertained unless the applicant has
furnished satisfactory proof of the
payment of not less than one-third of
such disputed amount:

Provided further that where the
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
passes an order for the stay of recovery of
any stamp duty, interest thereon or
penalty or for the stay of the operation of
any order appealed against and such order
results in the stay of recovery of any
stamp duty, interest thereon or penalty,
such stay order shall not remain in force
for more than thirty days unless the
appellant furnishes adequate security to
the satisfaction of the Collector concerned
for the payment of the outstanding
amount];

(2) If any Collector, acting
under Section 31, Section 40 or Section
41, feels doubt as to the amount of duty
with which any instrument is chargeable,
he may draw up a statement of the case,
and refer it, with his own opinion thereon,
for the decision of the Chief Controlling
Revenue authority.

(3)
Such
authority
shall
consider the case and a copy of its
decision to the Collector who shall
proceed to assess and charge the duty (if
any) in conformity with such decision."

5. Learned counsel stated that if the
proviso under Section 56 (1A) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which provides
for the filing of a Stay Application is
perused, he submits, that only 1/3rd of the
disputed amount which included the
interest payable on it alone had to be paid
alongwith the Stay Application. Learned
counsel further submitted that when the
1/3rd amount had to be paid for moving
the Stay Application then the amount had
not to include the penalty which was
imposed.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner stated that if the disputed
amount was to include the penalty also
3 All. Vivek Kumar Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
1245
then it would become very difficult for an
ordinary citizen to file an Appeal.
Learned counsel submitted that any
provision of law ordinarily should be so
read that it best harmonizes the object of
the statute. He submitted that the object of
the statute was that when an Appeal was
filed then the assessee should deposit a
certain amount so that if he eventually
loses the appeal the financial burden upon
the assessee should be minimal. Learned
counsel, therefore, submits that even
though the statute was very clear that
before the staying of the recovery of any
amount which was being made from an
assessee under an order passed under
Section 47 (A), 1/3rd of the amount had
to be paid of the disputed amount, the
appellate courts, many a time, directed for
the depositing one third of the amount
which was a total of the deficiency
alongwith the interest and the penalty
amount.

6. Learned counsel submitted that
disputed amount only included the deficiency
which was assessed alongwith the interest
which was imposed under Section 40 (1-A) of
the Indian Stamp Act. Learned counsel
submitted that definitely the 1/3rd of the
penalty had not to be paid.

7. Learned Standing Counsel,
however, in reply, submitted that when
the petitioner had not moved any Stay
Application then it was but natural that
the recovery in pursuance of the order
dated 30.5.2019 had to be made.

8. Learned Standing Counsel further
submitted that a bare perusal of the
proviso under which the Stay Application
was moved in Section 56 (1-A), the 1/3rd
of the disputed amount had to be paid
which according to him was 1/3rd of the
deficiency amount, the interest imposed
upon it and the penalty. He submits,
therefore, that the petitioner when had not
moved the Stay Application then he had
to bear the consequences.

9. Having heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel, this Court is of the view that the
Stay Application under the proviso to
Section 56 (1-A) could be moved if the
petitioner
deposited
1/3rd
of
the
deficiency assessed by the Collector
alongwith the interest imposed upon it
under Section 40 (1- A) of the Indian
Stamp Act. The petitioner had not to
deposit the 1/3rd of the penalty imposed.

10. If the statute was to be interpreted
in the manner the learned Standing was
interpreting, then it may become very
difficult for an individual to file an appeal.
Penalty definitely did not form a part of the
disputed amount. Disputed amount was only
such an amount which included the
deficiency calculated alongwith the interest
imposed upon it under Section 40 (1-A) of
the Indian Stamp Act.

11. Under such circumstances, if the
petitioner moves an application alongwith
the 1/3rd of the deficiency calculated by
the District Magistrate within a period of
two weeks from today then the Appellate
Court shall pass orders on the Stay
Application within a period of three
weeks thereafter.

12. For a period of five weeks, no
coercive action shall be taken against the
petitioners.

13. With the above observations, the
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
1246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2019)11ILR A1246

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ C No. 23672 of 2019

Bharat Bhushan Thapar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Hridesh Batra, Sri Anurag Khanna, Sri
Himadari Batra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sabhajeet Singh

A. Right to Privacy - Aadhar (Targeted
Delivery of Financial & other Subsidies,
Benefits & Services) Act, 2016 - Section 33 -
prohibits discloser of information-without
prior order of Judge of High Court- even
individual can oppose discloser.

B. Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial
& other Subsidies, Benefits & Services)
Act, 2016 - Section 47 - individual can
make complaint.

Writ Petition disposed of (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

1. K.S. Puttaswamy (Rtrd) & anr. Vs UOI & ors
(2019) 1 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shashi Kant
Gupta, J. &
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. Facts of the present case as
narrated in the writ petition are as
follows:-

(i) Respondent nos.4 and 5 were
husband and wife and they brought a plot
no.869, measuring area of 521 square
yard, situated at Colony known as
Shalimar Garden, Extention-1, Village
Pasonda,
Loni,
District
Ghaziabad,
through a sale deed dated 19.02.1981
from company known as Mahalakshmi
land & Finance Pvt Ltd.

(ii) As per the petitioner's case,
Shri Jai Prakash Gupta (respondent no.4)
and Smt Kiran Bedi Gupta (respondent
no.5) died on 12.12.1984 and 22.12.2001
respectively.

(iii) The said plot was sold to
Smt. Raksha Devi Thapar (mother of the
petitioner) and Kumari Madhu Thapar
(sister of the petitioner) by a registered
sale deed dated 12.02.1990 by the eldest
son of Shri Jai Prakash Gupta through
power of attorney.

(iv) One Shri Pramod Kumar
Singh Chauhan along with some anti
social persons when tried to disposses the
petitioner from the said plot an FIR was
also lodged against him on 04.11.2012.

(v) The petitioner also filed a
suit bearing Suit no.2603 of 2012 against
Shri Pramod Kumar Singh Chauhan for
seeking
permanent
injunction
for
restraining him from interfering in the
peace full possession of the petitioner on
the said plot and the Additional Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division)
Ghaziabad
granted permanent injunction against him
on 13.12.2012. Hence Shri Pramod
Kumar Singh Chauhan challenged the
same, by way of filling FAFO No.97 of
2014 and the court below vide order dated
09.01.2014, stayed the order dated
13.12.2012. The FAFO is still pending for
adjudication before the Court.

(vi) During the pendency of the
said FAFO, Shri Pramod Kumar Singh
Chauhan, being hand in glove with Shri