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


Gobari Prasad v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 57554 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 2607 (19 February 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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57554 of 2006.

Gobari Prasad


State of U.P. and others.


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority, namely Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 14th August, 2006, whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Additional District Collector (F/R), Deoria dated 11th October, 2004.

The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner got a sale deed executed in his favour in respect of the plot in dispute from the vendor, namely, Krishna Sewak on 21st July, 2004 and presented the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar after paying stamp duty of Rs.14,400/-, which according to the petitioner was on the market value assessed at circle rate fixed by the Collector, which was assessed at Rs.1,80,000/-, though in fact the sale deed was got executed in favour of the petitioner for Rs.1,50,000/-.  The sale deed was referred by the authority concerned to the Additional Collector concerned, who asked for a report from the Sub-Registrar after making spot inspection, who has submitted its report on 20th September, 2004, which according to the petitioner was submitted without inspection of the site/plot in dispute.  On the basis of the aforesaid report, the Additional Collector  vide its order dated 11th October, 2004 found that the petitioner is liable to pay additional stamp duty of Rs.47,680/- and other charges, the total of which comes to Rs.55,942/-.  Thus, the Additional Collector dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner and directed to pay the additional stamp duty and other others, referred to above.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector (F/R) dated 11th October, 2004, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur.  The Commissioner vide order dated 14th August, 2006 affirmed the findings arrived at by the Additional Collector and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that in fact no


spot inspection was made by the Sub-Registrar and that the stamp duty was paid by the petitioner is sufficient according to the circle rate fixed by the Collector.  The view taken by the Additional Collector is not correct because the relevant factor has not been considered, namely that there is no passage or road for access the plot in dispute and that the land is surrounded by the agricultural land. Had spot inspection been correctly made in presence of the petitioner, this fact should have been brought to the notice of the inspecting authority.  It has also been observed by the authority that the petitioner should have filed a map in order to substantiate its argument, but the same has not been filed.  Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the authority who has made the spot inspection should have annexed the site plan also and that the authority is supposed to in his possession the relevant site plan, but since the inspection was not made in presence of the petitioner, this could not be brought on the record.  It is further pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that along with the report of the Sub-Registrar, the site plan and the inspection report submitted has been made after spot inspection.  The plot in dispute is surrounded by agricultural land, which clearly demonstrate that the case set up by the petitioner deserve to be considered which in fact has not been considered by the authorities despite objection raised by the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.  Since the case set up by learned counsel for the petitioner has not been considered by the authorities concerned with which I am agree, therefore in view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed.  The order passed by the Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 14th August, 2006 is quashed.  The matter is remanded back before the Commissioner concerned for decision afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court, referred to above and in accordance with law.  The Commissioner concerned is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before it.




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.