9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Sub Registrar. (b) The Sub Registrar submitted a confidential report dated September 14, 2020 to the Assistant Inspector General (Registration), Jaunpur. In the said report, a deficiency of Rs.4,45,790/- in stamp duty and Rs.63,690/- of registration fee was pointed out. (c) A stamp case was registered and notice was issued to the petitioners. They appeared before the Collector (Stamp) and agreed to deposit the amount to avoid the imposition of penalty. (d) The Collector (Stamp) heard the case, considered the material available on record and after adjudicating the market value of the land, boundary wall and existing trees, it held that there was a deficiency of Rs.4,45,790/- in stamp duty and Rs.63,690/- in registration fee. The Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- vide order dated December 9, 2020. The petitioners deposited the entire amount on December 18, 2020. (e) One Shiv Prasad, son of Chauthi Singh, filed a complaint on December 23, 2020 seeking recall of the order dated December 9, 2020. Acting on the complaint of the said private person, another notice dated December 31, 2020 was issued by the Collector (Stamp) to the petitioners. (f) The petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Collector in the exercise of powers expressly conferred upon him under Section 47-A and in accordance with the procedure laid down therein, the same could not be reopened and reviewed except in accordance with law. The powers exercisable by the Collector under S. 47-A are unarguably quasi judicial in nature. There is a procedure laid down for the determination of the valuation which clearly affects the rights of the person who is called upon to pay additional stamp duty in case the adjudication goes against him. That being so, an adjudication made by the Collector under S. 47-A of the Stamp Act could not be disturbed or reopened unless there is an express provision in the enactment conferring power of review by the authority making that order. It is settled law that the power of review on merits is not an inherent power. Such a power must flow from some specific provision in the enactment under which rights of the parties are determined. We are amply fortified here with several decisions of the Supreme Court on this aspect of the controversy. Thus in Patel Narshi Thakarshi v. Praduman Singhji, (1971) 3 SCC 844 : AIR 1970 SC 1273 at p. 1275 para 4, their Lordships of the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h to the determination made by the Collector under Section 47-A as someone or the other could always be trusted to come forward with a higher offer, the prices of the real properties spiraling the way they have been these days. It would be setting up a dangerous precedent if orders passed under Section 47-A are reopened on the ground on which they have been done in the present case. 10. The learned Standing counsel was unable to point out any provision whether in the Stamp Act or even in the Registration Act which could disclose the existence of such a power of review upon the Collector. The learned Standing Counsel, however, pointed out sub-section (4) of Section 47-A as conferring such a power of review upon the Collector." 11. The submission cannot be accepted as sub-section (4) comes into play only if the matter had not already been referred to the Collector under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 47-A. In the present case, the dispute had already been specifically referred to and answered by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act." 6. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Sunil Kumar's case (supra) has held as under:- "10. It cannot be disputed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ested in superior authority under the Act. The consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is not vested with any power of review of his order and, therefore, cannot reopen any proceeding and cannot review or revise his earlier order. However, as a judicial or quasi judicial authority he has the power to correct any clerical mistake/arithmetical error, manifest error in his order in exercise of his inherent power as a tribunal. 14. In the case of Syed Madadgar Husain Rizvi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in MANU/UP/1034/2007 : 2007 (9) ADJ 581 (DB) : (2007 (6) ALJ (NOC) 1097 (All) this Court has held: A quasi judicial authority is not permitted to review its order unless it is so expressly conferred by the Statute itself. " 7. From an overview of the judgments cited above, it is clear that the Collector (Stamp) cannot recall and/or review his own order as no such power has been conferred under Section 47-A of the Act. A quasi-judicial authority is limited in its functionality in as much as it has to act within the four corners of the statute from which it derives its authority. If the statute does not provide for a particular act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... void ab initio, meaning they are null and void from the outset, and cannot be sustained in law. 11. The legislature, in its wisdom, may choose to grant limited review powers to certain quasi-judicial authorities based on the nature of the disputes they adjudicate and the need for effective administration of justice. However, any expansion of review powers beyond what is expressly provided by statute undermines the principles of legislative supremacy and judicial independence. Given the absence of inherent powers and the statutory limitations on review, quasi-judicial authorities must exercise prudence and restraint in revisiting their earlier decisions. 12. In the instant case, it is clear that no such power was present with the Collector (Stamp), and therefore, the exercise of review carried out by the Collector (Stamp) is bad in law. In light of the same, the impugned order dated February 3, 2023 is quashed and set-aside and this writ petition is allowed. EPILOGUE 13. During the course of the hearing, an affidavit was filed by the Staterespondents indicating that a show cause notice was issued on January 6, 2021 to the Sub Registrar with regards to the alleged fabricated an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
