Arun Tandon, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.
Petitioner before this Court had offered highest bid in the matter of collection of Tehbazari in pursuance to the auction held by Nagar Palika Parishad, Gulawathi (Bulandshahr) in the year 1998. His bid was accepted. Petitioner has admittedly collected tehbazari in pursuance to the contract granted for the relevant period.
It is admitted on record that the agreement for collection of tehbazari was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.105/ (reference paragraph3 to the present writ petition).
On 6th September, 2002, petitioner was issued a notice by the Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Gulavathi (Bulandshahr) asking him to pay stamp duty in respect of the said agreement to the tune of Rs. 42,770/ along with penalty failing which the money shall be recovered as the arrears of land revenue.
Petitioner was also served with a notice under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act on 25th September, 2002 by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Bulandshahr. Petitioner is stated to have submitted his reply. The Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) was not satisfied and therefore, he passed a reasoned speaking order on 28th January, 2003 raising a demand of Rs. 49,630/ towards stamp duty and penalty of Rs. 2370/ against the petitioner.
Petitioner filed revision under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act against the said order. This revision came to be dismissed on 17th June, 2004 in absence of the petitioner. He made a restoration application along with affidavit on 23rd January, 2006. The restoration application was also came to be dismissed vide order dated 25th July, 2007. No further steps had been taken by the petitioner. At least no fact in that regard is disclosed in the present writ petition.
Recovery certificate has been issued against the petitioner on 19th June, 2013 for enforcing the recovery in terms of the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) dated 28th January, 2003.
Petitioner by means of the present writ petition seeks quashing of the orders dated 28th June, 2003, dated 25th July, 2007 as well as the order dated 25th July, 2007 (Annexure Nos. 8, 12 and 13 to the present writ petition) and dated 28th January, 2003.
Order of the revisional authority dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner said to be ex parte dated 17th June, 2004 (Annexure10 to the present writ petition) is not under challenge in the present writ petition.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petition.
So far as the challenge to the order dated 28th January, 2003 is concerned, suffice is to record that same has merged in the order dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner dated 17th June, 2004 as noticed above.
So far as the order dated 25th July, 2007 is concerned, this Court finds the the revisional authority has specifically recorded that absolutely no reasons have been disclosed as to why the petitioner did not appear on the date the revision was fixed for hearing before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut i.e. 17th March, 2004 and further that the restoration application has been filed after nearly two years of the earlier order dismissing the revision. For this delay, sufficient reasons have not been disclosed. Before this Court also the aforesaid order of 2007 has been challenged after more than six years, for which only explanation furnished is that some news item was published in newspapers to the effect that the contracts of Tehbazari are to be executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/ only, therefore, the petitioner presumed that the recovery in terms of the order dated 28th January, 2003 has been dropped.
The explanation furnished by the petitioner is too flimsy to be accepted by this Court. The news items published in newspaper is third hand information and cannot be relied upon in any Court proceedings. In any view of the matter the petitioner should have been vigilant and should have pursued his remedy against the orders, which had been made under the Statutory provisions.
This Court cannot come to the rescue of a person who had deliberately not contested the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner in his revision and has taken more than 6 years to approach this Court.
So far as the recovery citation is concerned, it is only a consequential action in terms of the orders which have been passed by Statutory authorities. Since challenge to the said orders is not being entertained by this Court for inordinate delay, interference against the recovery proceedings is not called for.
Even otherwise, this Court may record that the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand and others v. Harpal Singh Rawat; JT 2011(2) SC 481 has laid down that the meaning of the word "lease" for the purposes of Stamp duty has to be determined with reference to the definition of word "lease" as per Section 2 (16) of the Indian Stamp Act nor with reference to the Transfer of Property Act. The Apex Court in paragraph8 has held as follows:
"The definition of ''lease'' contained in Section 2(16) consists of two parts. The first part is applicable to any lease with respect to immovable property. The second part, which is inclusive, applies to various kinds of instruments by which a title, or other rights may be conferred upon the lessee for a specified period in respect of immovable property or otherwise. The use of the words "includes also" implies that the definition of lease contained in Section 2(16) (c) is very wide and even if the transaction does not amount to a lease under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, the same may nonetheless be a lease for the purpose of the Act."
The right granted to the petitioner to collect the Tehbazari would be squarely covered by the definition of word "lease" as contained in Section 2 (16) specifically subsection (c) of the Indian Stamp Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Lucknow Bench in the case of Satya Narayan vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others reported in 2013 (5) ADJ 648 (DB.) in support of his case.
In the opinion of the Court the said judgment is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case.
For the said reasons, this Court finds no ground to interfere against orders impugned. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
