Court No. - 27 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 1948 of 2007 Petitioner :- Mukesh Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Collector, Lucknow & 5 Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Sunil Sharma Respondent Counsel :- C.Sc.. Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
Heard Ms. Puja Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner purchased the premises in question in the year 2003 from the
respondent No.5 and 6 who purchased it from the original owner in the year
2002. On account of non-payment of stamp duty, recovery proceedings have
been initiated against the petitioner.
It has been submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that with regard to the
deficiency of stamp duty, recovery should be made from the opposite parties 5
and 6. She also submits that the present writ petition has been preferred so
that the respondents may not harass the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the entire recovery is made in terms of
the agreement.
Controversy seems to be existed between the two private persons. No
mandamus can be issued by this Court to the opposite parties 5 and 6 for
payment of dues in question. For any grievance including the alleged
harassment at the hands of the opposite parties, option is open for the
petitioner to approach the Civil Court by preferring regular suit.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to
approach alternative forum as the controversy relates to disputed question of
facts.
Subject to above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.7.2010
kkb/