Summary
The Court declined interference with recovery of an outstanding stamp penalty from a subsequent property purchaser, while directing the parties to follow the same-day companion judgment reducing the penalty by half. Submission of post-dated cheques did not constitute an approved substitute for depositing the amount. The purchaser could seek reconsideration of building permission after payment. Later municipal and revenue actions were outside the original writ dispute and left open to separate lawful remedies.
Issues
- Whether post-dated cheques defeated recovery of the outstanding stamp penalty.
- What effect the companion reduction of penalty had on recovery and building permission.
- Whether subsequent notices could be adjudicated in the pending appeal.
Held
- The earlier conditional stay had ceased to operate for non-compliance. The purchaser was liable for the penalty outstanding against the property, and submission of post-dated cheques did not justify interference with recovery of the then-outstanding balance. (¶ 16)
- The same-day companion judgment reduced the penalty from ten to five times the deficient duty, fixing it at Rs.6,40,48,500. All parties were required to act in accordance with that determination, taking account of deposits. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The High Court had protected the purchaser’s ability to apply for building permission after deposit of duty and penalty. In view of the payments, the purchaser could apply and the Corporation was to consider the application as directed; the Court did not itself grant permission. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- Later municipal and revenue notices and actions were not part of the original writ petition and could not be determined in this appeal. Parties retained liberty to pursue remedies against them as permissible in law. (¶¶ 21, 22)
Result
Appeal disposed of. Parties to comply with the companion reduction of penalty; purchaser may seek building permission reconsideration. Challenges to subsequent actions left to separate permissible remedies.