Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Poonam Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru' District Magistrate, Etawah & Others - WRIT - C No. 26725 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10541 (7 June 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 45

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26725 of 2007

Smt. Poonam Sharma


State of U.P.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has purchased 1/ 2 of the Bhumidhari land No.536 measuring 0.158 Hectares (i.e.0.79) land from one Bal Krishna s/o Hardeo Prasad  (Jatav) R/O Nagla Nawabpur, Mauza Pugawali Pargana & District Etawah. Petitioner submits that Tehsildar Sadar Etawah submitted incorrect report to Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar, who exercises power of Collector Stamp under Indian Stamp Act. Petitioner submits that notices had been issued, to which he submitted reply and thereafter keeping in view the reply submitted by petitioner as well as report of the Lekhpal, orders were passed on 13.05.2005, holding therein that requisite stamp duty had already been paid and the document in question was not undervalued. After said order having been passed, Tehsildar Sadar requested for recall of the said order by terming the same as ex parte. Sub-Divisional Magistrate being satisfied that the order dated 13.05.2005 was an ex parte order, recalled the same vide order dated 22.08.2006. Appeal against the said order has been dismissed on 08.01.2007. Thereafter reference application was moved, which has been returned on 18.05.2007, contending that the same is  not maintainable . At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case once proceedings had been finalized, then there was no occasion to re-open the same, as such action taken is void and without jurisdiction.    

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that matter has been only remanded for fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, as such no interference be made.  

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that after passing order dated 13.05.2005 by Collector Stamp, complaint was made that it was en ex parte order. Thereafter, categorical finding has been returned by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, that order dated 13.05.2005 was an ex parte order, as such the same has been recalled with further direction for restoration of the case to be decided afresh. Appeal against said order has also been rejected. Once competent authority has satisfied himself that  the order dated 13.05.2005 was an exparte order and proceeded to recall the same and matter has to be decided afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, then in these circumstances, this Court cannot proceed to interfere with the discretion exercised vide order dated 22.08.2006, as confirmed in appeal vide order dated  08.01.2007 passed by the Commissioner.

    Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.