Stamp Deficiency Can Be Recovered From Legal Representatives To The Extent Of Their Inheritance: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that deficiency under the Indian Stamp Act,1899 can be recovered from legal representatives of the deceased only to the extent of their inheritance.
Section 181 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides for recovery proceedings against the legal representatives in cases of arrears of land revenue. It provides that recovery proceedings may continue against the legal representative (except arrest and detention) and recoveries shall be made only to the extent of the property inherited by the legal representatives from the deceased.
Referring to proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 181 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“….though, as per Section 48 of the Stamp Act, the Collector may adopt any of the modes of recovery as prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 170 against the petitioners, the same would, however, be subject to the rider contained under the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 181. That is to say that even if the recovery certificate is given effect to, the liability of the petitioners would be confined to the extent of the property of their deceased father which has come to their hands.”
Petitioners' father executed a sale deed in 2020 and stamp deficiency proceedings were initiated against him in 2022 where penalty was also imposed. Recovery certificate of Rs. 16,55,150/- was issued against the petitioners' father. He preferred a stamp revision before the Commissioner, but passed away during the pendency of the revision. Petitioners got themselves substituted in the revision. In 2025, the revision was dismissed.
Petitioners approached the Court seeking protection from recovery in proceedings under the Stamp Act.
The Court held that merely because the sale deeds were annulled by the Civil Court would not lead to dropping proceedings under the Stamp Act. It held that the chargeability under the Stamp Act is referable to the date of execution of the instrument, in this case, the sale deed.
Referring to Section 181 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the definition of legal representatives in Section 2(11) of C.P.C., the Court held
“In view of the above, whatever real and personal property including assets and liabilities the petitioners' deceased father had possessed with him during his lifetime, the same are now being represented by the present petitioners in the capacity of his 'legal representatives'. Therefore, Section 181 of the Code, 2006 would come into operation and the proceedings of recovery would continue against the petitioners as if they themselves are the defaulters. The
relevant question, however, arises for consideration is, as to the nature and extent, the petitioners would be liable to pay the sums due.”
The Court held that the petitioners' argument that they have not inherited anything from their father was a question of fact and could not be determined in writ jurisdiction. It also held that the Court could not define and limit the mode of recovery from the petitioners.
Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioners to approach the Collector, Agra with their objections and annexing their ITRs for a period prior to the their father's death as well as after it. It directed the Collector to conduct inquiry, provide opportunity of hearing and then pass order regarding recovery to be made from the petitioners. In the meantime, the Court prohibited the petitioners from alienating any property which they would have inherited from their father.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Verma and another vs. The State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 172
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 172