# Yatender Kumar Singh v. The Commissioner Moradabad Division, Moradabad and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 741
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-28
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11725 of 1998
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yatender-kumar-singh-v-the-commissioner-moradabad-division-moradabad-and-others-42268
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article-226correction
Deed-deficiency
of
Rs.
1778.50/-with
penalty-challenged
on
ground-stamp duty already paid at the
time
of
Registration-consequent
to
partition-present
deed
merely
correction-hence additional stamp duty
can not be imposed-held-misconceivedconsequent to partition certain portion
came in share of petitioner-requires
registration
-demand
of
additional
stamp-proper.

Held: Para 6

In
the
opinion
of
the
Court,
the
subsequent transaction was a fresh
transaction, inasmuch as, it was a
transfer of a specific property. In the
circumstances,
this
second
documentation cannot be said to be a
mere correction and was a complete
transaction conferring distinct right, title
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
and interest to the petitioner over the
same which has a different identity.

## Text

2 All] Yatendra Kumar Singh V. The Commissioner, Moradabad and others
741
not having before with us the learned
counsel for the petitioners so as to hearing
the petition and disposing it of and could,
legitimately, point out that this petition at
least remained pending before us since the
day it was listed before us. Only because the
learned counsel was not appearing, the
absence of the counsel has forced us to hear
the matter finally and decide it.

6. We cannot direct the Court, under
the circumstance we have just noted. It
would not only be perilous to do but shall
also be a dangerous and hazardous thing to
happen to judicial system. The Chief Justice
of any court is supposed to be sensitive
enough to the pendency and it is further
supposed that His Lordship is making all
efforts to expedite the hearing alongwith his
brother judges. Any one from the public
might be public-spirited in highlighting the
pendency but here in the present case we
are of the opinion that the petitioners
appears more interested in hogging the
lime-light than raising and agitating a right
cause. As regards the relief of issuing
direction in the nature of mandamus, etc. to
the court for its expeditious disposal of the
cases, we do not find any reason existing for
our indulgence.

7. We have reasons to believe that
Hon'ble
Judges
of
the
Court
are
conscientious and they are making valiant
efforts in their own way to dispose of as
many number of cases, as could be allowed
to be disposed of, by the parties.

8. While we were perusing the
petition and hearing Sri Mehrotra, we had
an impression coming out of the record and
that the main attempt of the petitioners was
to short circuit the legal procedure and to
get a relief which could not be granted to
them in the garb of this petition which has
been filed under the heading of 'Habeas
Corpus Petition'.

9. This petition, in our considered
view, is out and out unnecessary and
appears frivolous and the same is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11725 of 1998

Yatender Kumar Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner Moradabad Division,
Moradabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
R.K.Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article-226correction
Deed-deficiency
of
Rs.
1778.50/-with
penalty-challenged
on
ground-stamp duty already paid at the
time
of
Registration-consequent
to
partition-present
deed
merely
correction-hence additional stamp duty
can not be imposed-held-misconceivedconsequent to partition certain portion
came in share of petitioner-requires
registration
-demand
of
additional
stamp-proper.

Held: Para 6

In
the
opinion
of
the
Court,
the
subsequent transaction was a fresh
transaction, inasmuch as, it was a
transfer of a specific property. In the
circumstances,
this
second
documentation cannot be said to be a
mere correction and was a complete
transaction conferring distinct right, title
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
and interest to the petitioner over the
same which has a different identity.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P.Sahi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. The contention raised is that the
show cause notice issued to the petitioner
was for a deficiency of Rs. 1778.50 paise
only including penalty whereas while
passing the order the Stamp Collector has
enhanced the said amount to the tune of
Rs. 23740/-

3. A revision was filed against the
same which has been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel submits that the
document in question was only a
correction deed, and therefore, no further
Stamp duty was leviable as concluded by
the Stamp Collector. It was not a new
document of transaction and as such any
imposition of deficiency of Stamp and
penalty is without authority in law. The
revision has also been dismissed on the
same
erroneous
grounds
hence the
impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

5. Having perused the facts on
record what appears is that the petitioner
had initially purchased the share of the
vendor which became subject matter of a
partition suit and after the property was
partitioned a particular plot came to the
share of the petitioner. The vendor
accordingly executed a fresh deed which
according to the petitioner was only a
correction deed.

6. In the opinion of the Court, the
subsequent transaction was a fresh
transaction, inasmuch as, it was a transfer
of
a
specific
property.
In
the
circumstances, this second documentation
cannot be said to be a mere correction and
was a complete transaction conferring
distinct right, title and interest to the
petitioner over the same which has a
different identity.

7. In the circumstances, the
Collector was justified in imposing the
deficiency of Stamp Duty as well as the
penalty.

8. The second issue relating to
enhancement of the amount as against the
show cause notice does require a
reconsideration,
inasmuch
as,
the
petitioner had raised his objections and
had also taken grounds in his grounds of
revision.
In
the
circumstances,
the
revisional order dated 10.12.1997 is set
aside and the matter is remitted back to
the revising authority to adjudicate this
issue relating to the enhanced amount of
deficiency as is alleged to have been
imposed on the petitioner at the time of
passing of the final order. The revising
authority shall consider the same and pass
orders as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of three
months. The amount already deposited by
the petitioner shall be subject to the final
outcome of the revision.

9. The writ petition is partly
allowed.
---------
2 All] Vijai Vir Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others
743
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11842 of 1982

Vijai Vir Singh & Ors.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Girdhar Nath
Sri K.R. Singh
Sri RPS Chauhan
Sri V.D. Chauhan
Sri Krishna Raj Singh
Sri Avadhesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
Sri K.C. Dwivedi

Imposition of Ceiling on land Holding
Act,
1960-Section
10
(2)-Exemption
from surplus land-claimed on basis of
gift
deed-executed
on
19.01.70categorical finding of fact regarding
continuation of possession of donor-both
sons as minor-gift deed found to be
sham
transaction-ignoring
such
gift
deed-held justified.

Held: Para 13

In
the
present
case
the
Appellate
Authority has discussed this aspect and
has recorded a finding that cultivation
and possession of land continued with
the tenure holder and the gift deed was
never acted upon. There is nothing on
record in the present writ petition as also
the pleadings to show that the aforesaid
findings are perverse or contrary to
record.
Case law discussed:
1994 Supp (3) SCC 702; 1979 AWC 187

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, Sr.
Advocate
assisted
by
Sri
Vikram
D.Chauhan for the petitioners and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The writ petition is directed
against the order dated 03.8.1982 passed
by IV Addl. District Judge, Moradabad
deciding Civil Appeals No.351 of 1976
and 350 of 1976 by a common judgment
pursuant to the direction of this Court
vide judgment dated 23.4.1980 in Writ
Petitions No.4901 of 1978 and 4902 of
1978.

3. The ceiling proceedings were
initiated
under
Section
10(2)
of
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Act
1960") against Sri Man Vir Singh, father
of the petitioners. Besides Sri Man Vir
Singh, petitioner's father, objections were
also filed by petitioners stating that there
are five children therefore every member
is entitled for exemption of two hectares
of land and that for certain land sale deeds
were executed prior to 24.1.1971 hence
that could not have been included with the
holding of noticee so as to determine
surplus land and that there is a valid gift
of certain land before 24.1.1971 hence it
is also liable to be excluded.

4. Prescribed Authority passed final
order on 28.7.1976 determining 10.71
acres of irrigated land as surplus rejecting
all their objections.

5. Two appeals were preferred by
the petitioners and petitioner's father
which
were
decided
by
Appellate
Authority vide judgment dated 31.3.1978
and both the appeals were dismissed. The