Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51406 (ALL)

SMT. NASIRA KHATOON v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/6216/2017 · 2025-05-22

Piyush Agrawal

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87996 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6216 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Nasira Khatoon Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought a order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondent no.3/District Magistrate/Collector, Jaluan at Orai to refund the amount of deficiency of stamp duty so deposited by her through Challan dated 15.03.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the impugned order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Additional District (F & R), Jalaun at Orai, the deficiency of stamp duty amounting to Rs. 1,32,000/- was deposited by means of Challan dated 15.03.2013, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.2 to this affidavit. 5. He further submits that against the order dated 13.12.2012, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was registered as Appeal No.4/2/10 of 2012-13, which was allowed vide orer dated 06.06.2013 by the respondent no.2 and the order dated 13.12.2012 was quashed. Thereafter, the petitioner is running from pillar to post to get the aforesaid amount of deficiency of stamp duty refunded, but in vain. Therefore, the petitioner compelled to file the present writ petition, seeking Mandamus for the refund of the said amount. 6. He further submits that once an order has been passed on 06.06.2013 and the same has not been modified or stayed by the competent court, the State cannot have the benefit of retaining the money so deposited by the petitioner. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that against the order dated 06.06.2013, a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 866 of 2015 has been filed, which is pending consideration before this Court. 8. Upon hearing the parties, the Court has perused the records. 9. It is not in dispute that the order holding the deficiency of stamp duty was passed by the Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Jalaun at Orai on 13.12.2012, pursuant to which, the amount of deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,32,000/- was deposited by the petitioner through Challan dated 15.03.2015. The order dated 13.12.2012 was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 06.06.2013 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for the refund of the amount so deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 06.12.2012, but instead of allowing the said application and make the refund to the petitioner, the same has been withheld by the State on the pretext that the a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 866 of 2015 is pending consideration before this Court. The respondents have failed to bring on record any interim order operating in their favour having modified or reversing the order dated 06.06.2013. In absence of any order in favour of the respondent, the respondents authorities are not justified to hold that legitimate refundable amount to the petitioner. The amount to be refunded was deposited in the year 2013 and now, it has almost 12 years passed, but still the petitioner is deprived to utelize the said money without any rhyme or reason any fault on the part of the petitioner. 10. In view of the above facts as stated, the petitioner is entitled for refund of amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- along with interest. 11. Accordingly, a Mandamus is issued in favour of the petitioner and the respondents authorities are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,32,000/- along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of its deposit till actual payment is made, to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad