- (1.) SHRI H.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 puts in appearance.
(2.) BY way of this writ petition notice annexure No. 1 dated 12.03.2010 demanding stamp duty beyond Article 57 of Schedule -1B of Indian Stamp Act has been called in question. We have heard learned Counsel for parties. There is no dispute that following a judgment of this Court reported in, 2005 A.L.J. 2336 (Strong Construction v. State of U.P. and Ors.), two Co -ordinate Benches of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4909 (MB) of 2009 (Vijay Kumar Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Ors.) and Writ Petition No. 4 (MB) of 2006 (Pushpa Associate v. State of U.P.) have taken a view that the stamp duty can be realized only in terms of Article 57 of Schedule -1B of Indian Stamp Act. The order passed in writ petition No. 4 (MB) of 2006 on reproduction reads as under: Notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, while notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 3 and 4 has been accepted by Sri Krishna Chandra. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. There is a full agreement at the Bar that the matter stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Tajveer Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. : 1997 (2) AWC 1029. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as brought on record, the respondents are directed to give effect to the judgment of this Court in the case of Tajveer Singh and others (supra) it is further provided that the petitioner will not be required to pay stamp duty except in accordance with Article 57 of the Schedule 1B. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , we direct the respondents to give effect to the judgment of this Court in the case of Tanjeet Singh and ors (supra) and further that the petitioner will not be required to pay stamp duty except in accordance with Article 57 of Schedule 1B of Indian Stamp Act.;