Allahabad High Court

SURENDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: SIDDHARTH NANDAN

Holding

Recovery of the stamp duty deficiency cannot be levied against the petitioner as the final order under Section 47A(3) applies only to the vendee.

Summary

The petitioner, Surendra Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State authorities not to harass him for recovery of a stamp duty deficiency of Rs. 69,35,000 that was determined against the vendee, Kailash Chandra Saxena, under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioner argued that he was the owner of the property and was not a party to the proceedings, and that the recovery certificate was issued in the vendee's name. The respondents contended that the order dated 06.01.2016 under Section 47A(3) was final and that the recovery was not sought against the petitioner, leaving him without cause of action. The Court held that the recovery cannot be imposed on the petitioner as the final order applies only to the vendee, and suggested that the petitioner may seek demarcation of the portion of his property not covered by the sale agreement. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that no coercive recovery can be taken against the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether a stamp duty deficiency order under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, binding on the vendee, can be enforced against the purchaser/owner of the property.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus restraining the State authorities from recovering the stamp duty deficiency.

Legislation cited

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 — s. 47, 47A(3)

Subjects

Indian Stamp Act
Section 47A
stamp duty deficiency
mandamus
writ petition
property ownership
finality of order
recovery

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17347 of 2026

Surendra Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma, Advocate holding brief of Shri
Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 not to
harass the Petitioner for recovery of deficiency of stamp Rs.
69,35,000/- dated 18.07.2024 as issued by Respondent No. 4
against the Respondent No. 5 as well as his wife Late Krishna
Saxena in pursuance to the order dated 06.01.2016, passed by
Respondent No. 2 and order dated 18.02.2016, passed by
Respondent No. 3;

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the Respondent No. 2 to decide the
representation of the Petitioner dated 22.01.2026 moved by the
Petitioner, within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble
Court"

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in proceedings
under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, a deficiency of stamp
duty was determined against the purchaser of the property, i.e., Shri
Kailash Chandra Saxena and others, vide order dated 06.01.2016. He has
further submitted that he is the owner of the property in question, and at
the time the deficiency was to be determined, the same was determined
against the vendee, and he was not even a party to the proceedings under
Section 47A(3) of the Act, 1899; however, the respondents are proceeding
WRIC No. 17347 of 2026
2

with recovery against the petitioner. He has also placed on record the
recovery certificate, which is also in the name of Shri Kailash Chandra
Saxena.

4. On the aforesaid, he submits that though the proceedings under Section
47A of the Act, 1899, as well as, recovery certificate is against the said
Kailash Chandra Saxena; but however, the respondents-authorities are
pressing recovery from the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that since the
recovery is not sought to the made against the petitioner, he has no cause
of action at this stage; and since the order dated 06.01.2016 passed under
Section 47A(3) of the Act, 1899 has attained finality, the recovery
certificate has been issued against the vendee and not against the
petitioner.

6. In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstance, the present writ petition
is disposed of with an observation that recovery or any coercive method
cannot be taken against the petitioner, in pursuance of the order dated
06.01.2016 passed under Section 47A of the Act, 1899; and if so advised,
the petitioner can seek for a demarcation of the remaining portion of his
property which is not subject matter of the agreement to sale dated
12.09.2013 and subject matter of the proceedings in Stamp Case
No.D2015015000232 (State vs. Kailash Chandra Saxena and others )
under Section 47A(3) of the Act, 1899.

(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
May 5, 2026
S.Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…