Allahabad High Court
Mahipal Singh Tomar vs State Of U.P. & Others on 3 February, 2010
Author: Abhinava Upadhya
Bench: Abhinava Upadhya
Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29770 of 2006 Petitioner :- Mahipal Singh Tomar Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- O.P. Rai Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Heard Sri O.P. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed under section 47-A (3) and 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
The petitioner who is alleges to be the holder of power of Attorney in respect of the property, namely, house no.E.305, Sector-25, Sanjay Nagar, District Ghaziabad was sold by execution of sale deed dated 7.10.2003. Proceedings under section 47-A (3) of the Act were initiated and the notices were issued to the petitioner to appear before the Court, but inspite of various notices none had appeared before the Court, therefore, order under section 47-A (3) of the Act was passed deterining deficiency in stamp duty holding that the ownership right was handed over to the petitioner by the aforesaid alleged power of attorney. The authority concerned disbelieved the claim that the petitioner was only the holder of power of attorney. The said matter was agitated before the Commissioner nuder section 56 (1-A) of the Act by the petitioner and the Commissioner upon consideration of material available on record has affirmed the order of the Collector. I have gone through the order of the Collector passed under section 47-A (3) and the order passed by the Commissioner under section 56 (1-A) of the Act. In my opinion, all the aspects have been considered and the petitioner was also given opportunity to contest,but he did not avail the said opportunity. Even otherwise, there is no infirmity in the orders impugned which may merit any further consideration by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.2.2010 VS.