Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 359 (ALL)

Dhanraj Singh v. State Of U. P.

1984-04-26

K.P.SINGH

body1984
JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the District Stamp Officer, Meerut dated 16-4-1975 and the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U. P. Allahabad dated 29-4-1977. 2. The petitioner had executed a gift-deed on 15-10-1971 and valued the gifted property at Rs. 11,000/-. On the audit report, the value of the gifted property was estimated at Rs. 1,58,000/- and odd. Thereafter, enquiry proceedings ensued to ascertain the correct value of the land. The respondent no. 2, District Stamp Officer, in his order dated 16-4-1975 (contained in annexure 6') fixed the value of the gifted property at Rs. 1,58,000/- and directed the realization of stamp duty and penalty accordingly. Against the order of the District Stamp Officer, the petitioner preferred a revision-petition to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, which reduced the valuation by Rs. 48,000/- and valued the gifted property at Rs. 1,10,000/- and directed the realization of stamp duty, as is evident from the certified copy of its order attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and that of the District Stamp Officer, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the District Stamp Officer has patently erred in passing the order dated 16-4-1975 without hearing the petitioner and affording him reasonable opportunity. It has been emphasized that the District Stamp Officer has written a cryptic order without referring to the relevant evidence on record hence his order suffers from patent error of law and deserves to be quashed. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the revisional authority has arbitrarily fixed the valuation on an ad hoc basis. It has also failed to consider the relevant evidence led by the petitioner in support of his valuation of the gifted property. 3. The learned counsel for the stamp authorities tried to support the impugned orders. According to him, the valuation of the gifted property fixed by the stamp authorities is correct in the circumstances of the present case. 4. During the course of arguments, I have entertained a doubt as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be entertained against the impugned orders in the circumstances of the present case. According to him, the valuation of the gifted property fixed by the stamp authorities is correct in the circumstances of the present case. 4. During the course of arguments, I have entertained a doubt as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be entertained against the impugned orders in the circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the ruling Subramaniam Chettiar v. Revenue Divisional Officer Devakottah, AIR 1956 Madras 454 and has emphasized the following observations vide paragraph 11: "..................We are of opinion that these petitions for issuing writs of certiorari would, in the circumstances, lie. It has never been doubted that this Court as the inheritor of the jurisdiction possessed by the original Supreme Court, has power to quash the order of an inferior tribunal, quasi judicial or administrative, if that order was passed either without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or if there is an apparent error in the order. This power of entertaining a writ petition for certiorari existed long before the Constitution, and has been enormously increased under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India relating to Fundamental Rights. It is clear that this Court can exercise, at the instance of an aggrieved party, irrespective of any fundamental right being involved in the matter such a power of issuing a writ of certiorari in suitable cases. Normally it will not issue a writ where there is an alternative remedy. But it is well settled now, by decisions of the Supreme Court, and the High Court, that there is no absolute bar to entertaining writ petitions, and issuing a writ, even when there are alternative remedies, when these alternative remedies are, in the opinion of the Court, not effective, speedy, adequate or sufficient, and the facts of each case have to be considered before deciding whether the alternative remedies are speedy, effective, sufficient or adequate." Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act reads as below; "Statement of case by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to High Court-(1) Cheif Controlling Revenue Authority may state any case, referred to it under Sec. 56, sub-section (2), or otherwise coming to its notice, and refer such case, with its own opinion thereon- (a) ........................... (b) ........................... (c) ........................ (d) ........................... (e)........................... (ee) ........................... (b) ........................... (c) ........................ (d) ........................... (e)........................... (ee) ........................... (2) Every such case shall be decided by not less than three Judges of the High Court, to which it is referred, and in case of difference, the opinion of the majority shall prevail." 5. Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act quoted above, affords a remedy to a citizen to have his case referred to the High Court against an order of the Revenue Authority imposing stamp duty or penalty, provided the application involved a substantial question of law and imposes an obligation upon the authority to refer it for its opinion, as has been held in Banarsi Dass Ahluwalia v. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi, AIR 1968 SC 497 . 6. In the circumstances of this case, I think that the petitioner had an alternative remedy and he should have pursued that remedy. This writ petition was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court on 17-8-1977 and the stay application was rejected on that very day. The writ petition has come up for final hearing in the year 1984; hence after a lapse of seven years, I do not think proper to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. Dismissal of the writ petition at this stage would not be sound exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. But all the same I feel that normally a citizen should pursue the remedy provided under the provisions of section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act. The facts of the Madras case mentioned (supra) are different and in those circumstances, entertainment of the writ petition directly under Article 226 of the Constitution may be justified, but in the present case, the facts are not similar to the facts of the Madras case (supra); hence the petitioner cannot derive any assistance from the aforesaid ruling. The petitioner was not under immediate danger of being arrested in recovery proceedings and the realization of stamp duty and penalty was not stayed by the Division Bench; hence the petitioner was not justified in filing the present writ petition directly against the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority without adverting to the provisions of Section 57 of the Indian stamp Act. 7. 7. Since the reference under section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act shall be decided by a Bench of three Judges of the High Court, I think that a citizen should be normally asked to pursue the remedy under the aforesaid section. 8. However, on merits, in the present case, I find that the proceedings have been initiated under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act against the petitioner as is evident from the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U. P. Allahabad. Section 47-A reads as below: "If the market value of any property, which is the subject of an instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, as set forth in such instrument, is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with any rules made under this Act, the Registering Officer, appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, shall refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if such Registering Officer, while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, has reason to believe that the market value of the property, which is the subject of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. (3) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an inquiry in such manner, as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property, which is the subject of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, and the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty". The order passed by the Stamps Officer on 16-4-1975, contained in Annexure 6' attached with the writ petition, is a cryptic order. A perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the District Stamp Adhikari has placed reliance upon the report of Sub-Divisional Officer and it does not appear that he gave reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claim. The order passed by the Stamps Officer on 16-4-1975, contained in Annexure 6' attached with the writ petition, is a cryptic order. A perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the District Stamp Adhikari has placed reliance upon the report of Sub-Divisional Officer and it does not appear that he gave reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claim. The aforesaid order does not appear to have taken into account the evidence supporting the claim of the petitioner regarding valuation given before the Tahsildar, contained in Annexure 1', hence I think that the order of the District Stamp Adhikari suffers from patent error of law. The Chief Controlling Authority has also observed as below in the impugned order :- "............For these two considerations, some discount should be allowed to the revisionist. The reduction warranted can only be fixed on an adhoc basis and this in my view may be rounded at Rs. 48,000/-. Thus, the gift deed may be valued at Rs. 1, 10,000/-. Stamp duty be realized thereon." 9. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out the justification for adhoc basis, mentioned in the impugned order. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority also appears to have failed to take into account the evidence led by the petitioner regarding the valuation of the gifted land before the Tahsildar ; hence I think that the fixation of valuation by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority also suffers from patent error in so far as it has failed to take all relevannt evidence into consideration while determining the valuation of the gifted land. 10. In the circumstances of the present case, the impunged orders of both the authorities suffer from patent error of law and in this view of the matter, I think that the impugned orders should be quashed. The petitioner should not be asked to take recourse to the proceedings under section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act in such a circumstance specially when the order of the Zila Stamp Adhikari dated 16-4-1975 is too cryptic and in clear contravention of the principle of natural justice. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is, hereby, allowed. The petitioner should not be asked to take recourse to the proceedings under section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act in such a circumstance specially when the order of the Zila Stamp Adhikari dated 16-4-1975 is too cryptic and in clear contravention of the principle of natural justice. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is, hereby, allowed. The impugned orders of the Stamp Authorities are, hereby, quashed and the District Stamp Adhikari is directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of observations made above The petitioner should be given reasonable opportunity to substantiate his claim. There would be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.