Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2577 of 2010
Petitioner :- Boochi Singh @ Bachchu Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Dinesh Kumar,Nirvikar Gupta
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Court No.33
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.2577 OF 2010
Boochi Singh @ Bachchu Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others. .........Respondents.
------------------
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State.
Pleadings have been exchanged in this matter. The
matter has been disposed of at this stage itself.
The facts of the case are that one Shri Sher Pal Singh
executed a Power of Attorney dated 1.8.2001 in favour
of his elder brother, who is the petitioner in this case, of
his ¼th share in the family. The Power of Attorney is on
record. It is Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
On a plain perusal of the Power of Attorney, it appears
that it is an irrecoverable Power of Attorney.
In proceedings initiated against the petitioner, Stamp
Deficiency was adjudged, treating the Power of Attorney
to be an instrument under item 48 EE of Schedule-1 to
the Stamp Act. An ex-parte order was passed against
the petitioner on 30.5.02 and, thereafter, the petitioner
filed a revision, which has been dismissed.
However, upon a plain perusal of the order dated
23.11.09, it is clear that an obvious mistake has been
made in calculating the stamp deficiency, which has
been calculated for the entire holding of the four
brothers, whereas it should have been confined to 1/4th
share of Sri Sher Pal Singh. This is obvious mistake in
the order passed in the revision.
The matter is, therefore, remanded to the revisional
authority to rectify this error. He may give to the
petitioner an opportunity of hearing before passing fresh
orders.
The matter on remand will be decided within a period of
three months from the date a certified copy of this order
is being placed before the authority concerned. A copy
of this order may be placed before the authority
concerned within a period of three weeks from today.
The orders dated 23.11.2009 and 30.5.2002, are,
therefore, set aside.
In case the petitioner has made any deposit of money in
pursuance of the impugned order or in pursuance of
any interim order of this Court, the same shall remain in
deposit and shall be subject to fresh order being passed
by the authority.
This writ petition stands disposed of.
Dated :11.8.10
L.F./2577/10/30
