Press Reporter News Service
Chandigarh, December 24
An officer, who issued stamp responsibility restoration discover to landowners, has nearly landed himself in dock.
Act of respondent arbitrary
The act of the respondent is wholly arbitrary as a statutory proper granted to the petitioners by the state govt can’t be taken away via a letter which is within the nature of an govt order. — Shivansh Malik, Counsel
The HC has requested the officer to file his “private” affidavit explaining how he initiated the proceedings for the restoration of the alleged poor stamp responsibility. This was even if exemption from stamp responsibility was duly talked about within the sale deed itself.
Justice Rajbir Sehrawat directed that the proceedings in opposition to the petitioners, pursuant to the impugned order, would stay stayed. Issuing a discover of movement to the respondents for April 20 subsequent 12 months, he made it clear that the order would stay in pressure until the subsequent date of the listening to “solely”. The discover issued by the Bench was accepted by Deputy Advocate-Common Harish Rathee on behalf of the respondents. He additionally sought time from the Bench to file a written assertion. The difficulty was delivered to the HC discover after a petition was filed in opposition to the state and different respondents by Balwan and different landowners via counsel Shivansh Malik.
After going via the paperwork and listening to Malik, Justice Sehrawat mentioned the certificates concerning exemption from stamp responsibility had additionally been issued by the District Income Officer and the competent authority beneath the Land Acquisition Act.
Showing earlier than the Bench, Malik submitted the letters issued by Rohtak collector-cum-SDO had been arbitrary, unlawful, discriminatory and liable to be put aside. He mentioned the petitioners had been granted an incentive to buy a piece of land inside two years of acquisition of their land in Rohtak’s Kherari village to avail the advantages of sure insurance policies duly accepted by the Council of Ministers and printed within the Haryana gazette. As such, it attained a statutory character. However the respondent tried to remove the rights granted to the petitioners via a easy letter.