Allahabad High Court
Ganpati Infrastructure Development ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 July, 2020
Author: Saral Srivastava
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 80 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10625 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ganpati Infrastructure Development Company Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupam Kulshreshtha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner has purchased Plot Nos. 33, 35 and 36 and 38 having area of 0.922 hectare situated at Mauza- Babarpur Mustakil, Tehsil & District Agra by sale deed dated 31.12.2005
3. It appears that a proceeding under Section 47-A (3) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1899') was initiated against the petitioner which was registered as Case No.3210/2008-09 before Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'A.D.M.'). The said proceeding under Section 47-A (3) of the Act, 1899 culminated into discharge of notice by the A.D.M. by order dated 20.04.2009.
4. The respondents-state preferred a revision under Section 56(1) of the Act, 1899 against the order of A.D.M. dated 20.04.2009 which was registered as Revision No.C-202001000000117. The revision court by order dated 27.01.2020 condoned the delay in filing the revision and admitted the revision.
5. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that revision is highly time barred as the same has been preferred after ten years from the date of passing of order dated 20.04.2009 and revision court without issuing any notice on application to condone the delay to the petitioner condoned the delay and admitted the revision. Thus, order is per se illegal and without jurisdiction.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
7. The order impugned in the writ petition reads as under:-
"vkns'k izLrqr fuxjkuh] fuxjkuhdrkZ m0iz0 jkT; o vU; }kjk Hkkjrh; LVkEi vf/kfu;e 1899] dh ?kkjk 56(1) izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 5 E;kn vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr nkf[ky dh x;hA fuxjkuh dh xzkg~;rk ds fcUnq ij jkT; ljdkj ds vf/koDrk dks lquk x;kA fuxjkuh vk/kkj] voj U;k;ky; dk iz'uxr vkns'k ,ao vU; vfHkys[kksa dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA izLrqr fuxjkuh U;k;ky; vij ftykf/kdkjh (fo0@jk0)] vkxjk }kjk LVkEiokn la[;k 3210@2008&09 fnukad 20-04-2009 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds fo:)] LVki vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 56(1) esa izkFkZuk i= /kkjk&5 E;kn vf/kfu;e ds vUrXkZr izLrqr dh x;h gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ dh fuxjkuh esa of.kZr rF;ksa ij lE;d ijh{kk.kksijkUr U;k;fgr esa jkT; ljdkjh dh fuxjkuh xq.knks"k ij lquokbZ ds fy, xzg.k dh tkrh gSA voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ryc djus gsrq ekax i= izsf"kr fd;k tk;s rFkk f}rh; i{k dks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;sA i=koyh izrh{kk voj U;k;ky; gsrq fnuakd 27-04-2020 dks is'k gksA fnukad% 27-01-2020 (,e0 ds0 lDlsuk) mik;qDr LVkEi] vkxjk e.My] vkxjkA"
8. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that delay in filing the revision has been condoned and revision has been admitted. If petitioner had not been given notice on delay condonation application and was not afforded any opportunity of hearing, it is open to the petitioner to take objection against the order condoning the delay in filing the revision before the revision authority, and in case any such objection is taken by the petitioner challenging the condonation of delay by the revision authority, revision authority shall decide the same in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 9.7.2020 Ravi Kant