@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. [227) No. 4552/2011 PETITIONER Smt. Indu Mishm W/o Shri Plaintiff Madhusudan Mishr'a, aged about 4O years, R/o Prayag Kunj, Boriya Road Bajrang Chowk, Santoshi Nagar, Police Station Tikrapara, Tah 85 District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Ashok Kumar Verma S/o Kripa Shanker Verma, aged about 46 years, Occupation Land Agent, R/o Near Raipur Convent School, Ashwani Nagar, Police Stau'on Pumni Basti Raipur (C.G.). '2. State of Chhattisgarh Thxough: Collector, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Vijay Kumar Anant S/o Late Sakha Ram Anant, R/o House Station Puram' Basti Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. kaywf,‘ w‘m--A V (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:~ Shri Y.C. Sharma, Advocate with Shri Vivek Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn’ Sumit Jhanwar, RL. for the State/respondent No‘ 2. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondent N0. 3. None for the respondent No. 1. Notice issued to respondent No. l not received served or unserved. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 01/091201 1) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 7/7/2011 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in- civil suit No. 12A/11 whereby application nled for impounding of document has been dismissed by the Court below on the ground that after amendment in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 application is not maintainable. Shri Y.C. Sharma, Advocate with Shri Vivek Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Sumit Jhanwar, P.L. for the State/ respondent p; W No. 724, Sunder Nagar, Police m .w—L‘ @ No. 2 81, Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 are heani. 3. As per order impugned Court below has dismissed the application for impounding the document on the ground of amendment i Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. ’ ‘ 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit nled before the Court below by plaintiif for specific performance on the basis of agreement to‘ sell therefore plaintiff was under obligation to stamped the document as per Article 23A of Shedu1e~1 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 but instead of issuing direction Court below has dismissed the application. “TH“ s ct _ 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No.‘ 2 85 3 opposed the petition, 6. Alleged agreement is unregistered agreement. As per claim of the petitioner on the basis of agreement possession has been parted to the present petitioner therefore plaintiE/petitioner is under S obligan‘on to pay stamp duty in accordance with Article 23A of Shedule—l of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 therefore there was no rider in impounding the document, vide order impugned Court below has committed an illegality. Consequently, petition is allowed. Order relating to dismissal of aforesaid application is hereby quashed. Court below shall heard and decide the application afresh in the light of Article 23A of Sheduleel of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. W(m c No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge fl/ n