TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 732 (M/B) of 2005 whereby the Division Bench while allowing the petition filed by the respondents herein issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.09.2004 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance Revenue), Lucknow and the demand notice dated 20.01.2005. 3) Brief Facts: a) A Sale Deed dated 16.04.2003 was executed between Har Charan Singh and the respondents herein in respect of the property situated at 17/1 Ashok Marg, Lucknow measuring 11,029 sq. ft. and registered as Sale Deed Document No. 5341 of 2003. The total value of the property was computed as ₹ 1,55,28,860/- for the purposes of Stamp Duty and the respondents herein paid ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 27.09.2004 and demand notice dated 20.01.2005, the respondent filed a writ petition being No. 732 of 2005 before the High Court. By order dated 25.01.2007, the High Court, while allowing the petition filed by the respondents herein issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.09.2004 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance Revenue), Lucknow and the demand notice dated 20.01.2005. e) Aggrieved by the said decision, the State has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court. 4) Heard Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, learned Addl. Advocate General for the appellant-State and Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 5) The only questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 11,300 per sq. metre. In other words, for the purpose of stamp duty and registration, according to the respondents, they added additional 10% to the value. 6) In support of the contention that they were not given adequate opportunity by the Addl. Collector and order was passed on a public holiday, before the High Court as well as in this Court, the respondents herein have placed the order sheet which contains the various dates and the date on which the ultimate decision was taken by him. It shows that the matter was heard and decided on a public holiday. In all fairness, the High Court instead of keeping the writ petition pending and deciding itself after two years could have remitted the matter to the Addl. Collector for fresh orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a public holiday. Regarding the merits though the Collector, Lucknow made a surprise site inspection, there is no record to show that all the details such as measurement, extent, boundaries were noted in the presence of the respondents who purchased the property. It is also explained that the plot in question is not a corner plot as stated in the impugned order as boundaries of the plot mentioned in the freehold deed executed by Nazool Officer and in the sale deed dated 16.04.2003 only on one side there is a road. It is also demonstrated that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the house in question was used for residential purpose and it is asserted that the stamp duty was paid based on the position and user of the building on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
