WRIC/17347/2026 of SURENDRA KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17347 of 2026 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma, Advocate holding brief of Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 not to harass the Petitioner for recovery of deficiency of stamp Rs. 69,35,000/- dated 18.07.2024 as issued by Respondent No. 4 against the Respondent No. 5 as well as his wife Late Krishna Saxena in pursuance to the order dated 06.01.2016, passed by Respondent No. 2 and order dated 18.02.2016, passed by Respondent No. 3; ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the Petitioner dated 22.01.2026 moved by the Petitioner, within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in proceedings under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, a deficiency of stamp duty was determined against the purchaser of the property, i.e., Shri Kailash Chandra Saxena and others, vide order dated 06.01.2016. He has further submitted that he is the owner of the property in question, and at the time the deficiency was to be determined, the same was determined against the vendee, and he was not even a party to the proceedings under Section 47A(3) of the Act, 1899; however, the respondents are proceeding Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Surendra Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) with recovery against the petitioner. He has also placed on record the recovery certificate, which is also in the name of Shri Kailash Chandra Saxena. 4. On the aforesaid, he submits that though the proceedings under Section 47A of the Act, 1899, as well as, recovery certificate is against the said Kailash Chandra Saxena; but however, the respondents-authorities are pressing recovery from the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that since the recovery is not sought to the made against the petitioner, he has no cause of action at this stage; and since the order dated 06.01.2016 passed under Section 47A(3) of the Act, 1899 has attained finality, the recovery certificate has been issued against the vendee and not against the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstance, the present writ petition is disposed of with an observation that recovery or any coercive method cannot be taken against the petitioner, in pursuance of the order dated 06.01.2016 passed under Section 47A of the Act, 1899; and if so advised, the petitioner can seek for a demarcation of the remaining portion of his property which is not subject matter of the agreement to sale dated 12.09.2013 and subject matter of the proceedings in Stamp Case No.D2015015000232 (State vs. Kailash Chandra Saxena and others ) under Section 47A(3) of the Act, 1899. May 5, 2026 S.Prakash WRIC No. 17347 of 2026 2 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad