The Allahabad High Court has held that once an appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has been dismissed because the appellant chose not to press it, a fresh appeal against the very same order of the Collector is not maintainable. It held that such an appeal is non est, and cannot attract the benefit of the State's stamp settlement scheme.

Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,

“… it is safely observed that the subsequent Appeal No.1174/2021 filed under section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was not a legally instituted Appeal and was, rather non-est, more particularly when no liberty was granted or obtained for filing an another appeal afresh.”

Petitioner purchased land at Gonda by a sale deed dated 14.03.2019 on stamp duty of Rs. 7,000/- per square metre, while the adjoining portion of the same property, bought by her husband, had been stamped at Rs. 28,000/- per square metre. On the Sub-Registrar's report that a single unit had been split into two conveyances, the Collector, Gonda proceeded ex parte under Section 47A of the Act and on 18.02.2020 directed payment of Rs. 3,52,190/- as deficient duty with an equal penalty and interest.

In her appeal under Section 56(1-A), petitioner applied on 03.03.2021 stating that on legal advice she did not wish to pursue it, admitted the shortfall, blamed the wrong advice of the deed writer and sought waiver of the penalty. The appeal was dismissed on that application on 25.03.2021, and she paid Rs. 4,98,076/- in five instalments, the last on 28.09.2021.

She then filed a second appeal on 18.11.2021 against the same order, seeking the benefit of the Government Order dated 24.12.2021, which allowed parties in pending stamp cases, appeals and revisions to deposit the deficiency with interest and a token penalty of Rs. 100/-. That appeal was dismissed on 17.02.2022 as not maintainable.

The Court observed that Section 56(1-A) opens with a non obstante clause and declares the appellate order final, and that no provision permitting a further appeal against the same order could be shown. Relying on Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. versus Mool Chand Sharma, it held that a second appeal does not lie where the first was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh.

Petitioner having admitted the deficiency and paid it, the Court held, she could not reopen the controversy, and the scheme applied only to proceedings instituted before it came into force.

“The only proceeding that is said to be pending on 24.12.2021 was a subsequently filed appeal which for the reasons recorded herein above, was not a validly instituted proceeding in the eyes of law. Thus, the benefit of the scheme under the Government Order dated 24.12.2021 was not available to the petitioner.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.