Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Singh vs Board Of Revenue And Another on 29 October, 2013
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
AFR
Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59783 of 2013
Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.K. Sirvastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner was subjected to stamp duty by an order dated 31st July 2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Mathura. Petitioner preferred a revision under Section 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 before the Board of Revenue/Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. at Allahabad. The revision was not entertained. It was returned with the oral remark that the power to entertain revision upto the valuation of Rs. 10 lacks has been delegated to the Commissioner of the Division by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in exercise of powers under Section 76-A of the Act by means of notification dated 8th December 2008.
The petitioner wants that his revision be entertained and decided by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue. He has invoked the writ jurisdiction for a direction upon the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad to entertain his revision and to decide it in accordance with law.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner has no authority in law to exercise the power of Board of Revenue/Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon a decision of Lucknow Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 6600 (M/S) of 2009 Neetu Agrawal and another Vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others passed on 17.12.2013.
I have perused the above judgment and order and find that the said writ petition was arising from an appeal preferred under Section 56 (1-A) of the Act and not from the revision. In the said writ petition the issue was that only the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is empowered to exercise the appellate power under Section 56 (A-1) of the Act and as such the order passed by the Commissioner (Revenue) was without jurisdiction. The Court accepting the submission held the order of the Commissioner to be without jurisdiction. The above judgment and order has been followed by another Hon'ble Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.6.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 33694 of 2013 Yogessh Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. The said petition was also arising from an appeal preferred under Section 56 (1-A) of the Act.
The above-referred judgments and orders are in connection with the appellate power exercised under Section 56 (1-A) of the Act and not in connection with revision under Section 56 (1) of the act. The appellate power is not delegable by the Chief Controlling Authority/Board of Revenue but whether it is true in respect of revisional power also is to be exempted.
Section 76 -A of the Act provides for delegation of certain powers exercisable by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by means of a notification published in the official gazette. It provides that all or any of the powers conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority inter-alia by Section 56 (1) of the Act are delegable to such sub-ordinate revenue authority as may be specified in the notification. It does not provide for delegation of appellate power conferred by Section 56 (1-A) of the Act.
In view of the above, the revisional power exercisable by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 56 (1) is clearly delegable to sub-ordinate revenue authority by means of a notification whereas the appellate power exercisable by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 56 (1-A) of the Act is not delegable. It it is in this context that their Lordship's of this Court in the above referred judgments and orders have ruled that the appellate power exercisable by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority can not be exercised by a subordinate revenue authority and the order, if any, passed by such an authority would be without jurisdiction.
The above decisions have no application in the present set of facts and circumstances where the issue is regarding exercising of power of revision under Section 56 (1) of the Act and not the appellate jurisdiction under Section 56 (1-A) of the Act. The revisional power conferred upon the Chief Controlling Authority/Board of Revenue is clearly delegable to subordinate revenue authority. Therefore, on its delegation the said power is exercisable by the authority to whom it has been delegated and not necessarily by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue itself.
In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to prefer revision before the Commissioner to whom the revisional power has been delegated by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.
It goes without saying that in case any revision is preferred by the petitioner, it shall be decided strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Order Date :- 29.10.2013
SKS
