Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) BY means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 3.11.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE proceedings giving rise to the present writ petition were initiated against the petitioner under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act as amended in the State of U.P. It has been stated in the writ petition that Indian Implements Manufacturing Company is the lessee of land contained in plots Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 Kasba Koil, Aligarh the said company authorised another company namely Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd., referred to as 'company' in the writ petition, to carry out development of the aforesaid piece of land and also to sell the same in best possible manner on behalf of Indian Implements Manufacturing Company. THE lessee and the company agreed to transfer lease hold right in respect of the land in question by an assignment in favour of the petitioner and some other persons. An agreement in this regard was duly registered with Sub-Registrar Sadar Aligarh on 27.6.2003. THE payment of proper stamp duty on the said agreement is in dispute. According to the respondents, proper stamp duty has not been paid on the said instrument. In this regard case No. 52 of 2003 Under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act has been registered. It is also not in dispute that a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has filed his reply. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Aligarh by order dated 23.10.2004 directed the Tehsildar Koil (Aligarh) to submit a report in respect of the land in question. The Tehsildar concerned submitted the report dated 29.11.2005. The matter was pending before the District Magistrate, Aligarh. An application to transfer the said case was filed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, UP. Allahabad being transfer application No. 30 of 2008-09. On the said application, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority passed stay order on 10.4.2008 staying further proceedings. Grievance of the present petitioner is that in spite of the stay order granted by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the impugned order has been passed by the Collector, Aligarh. When the matter was taken up earlier, an order dated 6.1.2009 was passed which is reproduced below: "A serious allegation has been made against the Collector. The contention is that the case stood transferred by the transfer order passed by the Board of Revenue from the Court of Collector to the Additional District Magistrate. In spite of knowledge of the transfer order, the Collector, Aligarh has passed the impugned order. Shri Sahai, learned Standing Counsel is hereby directed to produce the original record before the Court on 13.1.2009. He will also file counter affidavit on or before that date. List on 13.1.2009."
(3.) IN pursuance of the aforesaid order, the learned Standing Counsel has produced the record. The stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel in the light of the writ petition is that the matter is pending since the year 2003 and the petitioner's representative has been appearing all through. The said District Magistrate against whom allegations in the transfer application were made having been transferred and new incumbent having joined at his place, the interim order passed on the transfer application had become in fructuous and as such, new incumbent rightly passed the impugned order. It was further stated that opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order as is apparent from the order sheet. The matter was heard on 20.10.2008 and on the request of the present petitioner he was permitted to file written argument before 20.10.2008. The petitioner having failed to file the written argument the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that even if the officer concerned was transferred, the District Magistrate, who has taken charge after transfer of earlier District Magistrate, ought not to have heard and decided the matter in view of the fact that the stay order was operative, staying proceedings before the District Magistrate. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that on the facts of the present case, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner there being no allegation against the present District Magistrate who has passed the impugned order. The present District Magistrate has decided the matter on merits.;