The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Smt. Manmeet Kaur, who sought a waiver of the penalty imposed for a stamp duty deficiency on a property purchase. The Court held that she could not reopen the same dispute through a second appeal after voluntarily withdrawing her earlier appeal and agreeing to pay the outstanding amount.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi ruled that the Uttar Pradesh Government's stamp duty settlement scheme dated December 24, 2021, could not benefit the petitioner because no valid stamp duty proceeding was pending when the scheme came into force.
Background
Manmeet Kaur purchased a 189.75-square-metre plot in Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, through a registered sale deed dated March 14, 2019, for ₹63.67 lakh. The Sub-Registrar subsequently reported a deficiency in stamp duty, noting that the land was situated along the Gonda–Bahraich road and that an adjoining portion of the same property had been purchased by her husband at a higher stamp duty rate.
The Collector, Gonda, initiated proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. On February 18, 2020, the Collector directed Kaur to pay ₹3,52,190 in deficient stamp duty, along with an equal amount as penalty and applicable interest.
Kaur initially appealed against the order but later sought to withdraw the appeal, admitting the deficiency and expressing her willingness to pay. The appeal was dismissed on March 25, 2021. She subsequently deposited ₹4,98,076, including interest, through five instalments.
Kaur filed another appeal on November 18, 2021, challenging the same Collector's order. After the State Government introduced a settlement scheme on December 24, 2021, allowing eligible parties to settle stamp duty deficiencies with interest and a nominal penalty of ₹100, she sought the scheme's benefit.
The Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, dismissed the second appeal on February 17, 2022, holding it was not maintainable. Kaur then approached the High Court, seeking the benefit of the government scheme and waiver of the penalty.
Justice Rizvi examined whether a second appeal could be filed against the same order after the earlier appeal had been withdrawn. The Court noted that Section 56(1-A) of the Stamp Act provides for an appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and declares its order final.
The Court observed:
“The right of appeal being purely a creature of statute, in the absence of any provision permitting a subsequent appeal assailing the same order, the subsequent appeal preferred by the petitioner could not be treated as a validly instituted proceeding.”
The Court further noted that Kaur had voluntarily withdrawn her first appeal, admitted the stamp duty deficiency and paid the determined amount. No material indicated that her earlier applications had been submitted under coercion or undue influence.
On the settlement scheme, the Court held that the original proceedings and the first appeal had concluded before December 24, 2021. The subsequent appeal could not qualify as a valid pending proceeding for claiming the scheme's benefits.
The High Court held that the Additional Commissioner's order dated February 17, 2022, and the Collector's order dated February 18, 2020, did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
- Case Title: Smt. Manmeet Kaur v. State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Stamp and Registration, Lucknow and 2 Others
- Case Number: Writ-C No. 2129 of 2022
- Judge: Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- Decision Date: October 5, 2026
