Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shramik Janta Sangh vs The Collector Of Stamps on 28 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 28 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 891 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SHRAMIK JANTA SANGH THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT
C/O SHYAM BADANE, VILL. MAGARKHEDI, POST
SATRATI, TEH. KASARWAD, DIST. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(MS. MEDHA PATKAR IN PERSON)
AND
1. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMPS KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUB REGISTRAR DISTRICT KHARGONE,
KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CENTURY TEXTILE AND INDUSTRY LIMITED
THROUGH DIRECTOR/ AUTHORISED
REPRESENTATIVE VILLAGE AND POST SATRATI,
A.B. ROAD, DISTRICT KHARGONE AND CENTURY
BHAVAN, DR. ANNIE BASENT ROAD, CENTURY
BAZAR, WORLI, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
4. MANJEET GLOBAL LTD. THROUGH
DIRECTOR/AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE 318,
N-3, CIDCO JALNA ROAD, NEAR PUNJAB
NATIONAL BANK AURANGABAD,
MAHARASHTRA (MAHARASHTRA)
5. MANJEET COTTON LTD. THROUGH
DIRECTOR/AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE 318,
N-3, CIDCO JALNA ROAD, NEAR PUNJAB
NATIONAL BANK AURANGABAD,
MAHARASHTRA (MAHARASHTRA)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 01-06-2024
18:12:15
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.3 BY SHRI SUDEEP BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENTS NO.4 & 5 BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH CHHABRA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ROHIT SABOO, ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
This intra-court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 takes
exception to the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. No.17420 of 2023, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed with
liberty to the appellant to take recourse of Section 56 of the Indian Stamps Act,
1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1899).
02. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 / Century Textile &
Industries Limited issued a notice to the appellant showing its intention to sell
Denim & Yarn Unit situated at Khargone. Later on, it came to the knowledge of
the appellant that prior to issuance of the said notice, respondent No.3 had filed
an application for evaluation of the said properties before the Collector of
Stamp. By two separate, but identical order dated 28.06.2021, in exercise
power conferred under Section 31 of the Act of 1899, the Collector of Stamp
assessed the market value of the properties. Details of the same are as under:-
"(a) For land situated at Khasra No.190/1, 190/2, 190/3, 191, 192/1/1,
191/1/2m 192/1/2, 192/1/3, 192/1/4, 192/1/5, Halka No.28, Tehsil -
Kasrawad, District - Khargone admeasuring 7.651 hectare (18.91 acre),
the market value assessed was Rs.15,97,84,848/- and;
(b) For land situated at Khasra No.193/1, 194/1, 195/1m 195/3m 199/1,
199/2, 204, Halka No.28, Tehsil - Kasrawad, District - Khargone
admeasuring 25.91 hectare. It was Rs.45,98,73,931/-."
03. According to the appellant, the order dated 28.06.2021 is based on
the facts as stated in the application, draft deed and the report of the Sub
Registrar, therefore, there are discrepancies in the aforesaid assessment.
According to the petitioner, the purpose of Section 31 of the Act of 1899 is to
get the duty assessed on the draft deed and the same is not for the purpose of
getting the market value assessed. Hence, the duty valued under Section 31 of
the Act of 1899 is not final.
04. Appellant further contended that upon expiry of the 15 days notice
period, it came to the knowledge of the workmen that respondent No.3 by
executing two separate sale deeds dated 14.07.2021 sold both the aforesaid
properties to respondents No.4 & 5. When this fact (execution of two separate
sale deed) came to the knowledge of the workmen, they submitted a
representation before the Sub Registrar on 19.07.2021 alleging that as to how
the property description has been misrepresented to evade the stamp duty.
Thereafter, workmen again made a complaint regarding evasion of stamp duty
to the Sub Registrar on 30.07.2021 alleging that valuation of Rs.62,00,00,000/-
has been obtained on misrepresentation without disclosing that as per the
judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M.P. No.1680 of 2017
dated 06.04.2018, in the year 2018 the value of the said properties was Rs.426
crore. Further ground raised by the workmen is that aforesaid properties are
situated adjacent to the National Highway, hence, the evaluation has been done
on misrepresentation and without taking into account the plant and machinery
installed over the said land.
05. On 17.09.2021, the workmen made a representation to the Registrar
seeking his attention on the complaint made to the Registrar and also prayed for
direction to restrain the Tehsildar to initiate mutation proceedings. A
representation was also made to the Collector on 19.10.2021 to the aforesaid
extent.
06. On 12.11.2021, the Collector of Stamp issued notice to respondents
No.4 & 5 to adduce the evidence in support of their claim. Respondent No.3
submitted two replies on 20.05.2022 & 27.05.2022 by submitting that after
passing the order dated 28.06.2021, the Collector of Stamp became functus
officio, meaning thereby, he no longer had the capacity to vary the terms of his
order. After appreciating the evidence came on record, vide order dated
21.02.2023, the Collector of Stamp rejected the reference under Section 48(b)
of the Act of 1899, by holding that he cannot review / recall his own order
passed under Section 31, as after passing of order dated 28.06.2021, he
became functus officio.
07. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant approached the
learned Single Judge by way of writ petition, which came to be dismissed vide
order dated 13.03.2024 with liberty to the appellant to take recourse of Section
56 of the Act of 1899 for ventilation of its grievance. Hence, the present writ
appeal is before this Court.
08. Ms. Medha Patkar appearing for the appellant submits that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from illegality, impropriety and
perversity. The Collector of Stamp has power to review its own order. Hence,
the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. She has
placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of
Raymond Limited v/s The State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2007) 3 SCC
09. Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.4 & 5
submits that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ
petition, as after passing the order dated 28.06.2021, the Collector of Stamp
became functus officio, hence, he cannot review his own order. In other words,
the Collector of Stamp do not have power to review his own order as there is
no express provision of reviewing the order in the Act of 1899. It is settled
principle of law that until and unless any statute prescribes for power of review,
no judicial authority can exercise the power of review. In support of the
aforesaid contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon several
judgments delivered by the Apex Court in the cases of Raymond Limited v/s
State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2007) 3 SCC 79, National Security
Depository Limited v/s Securities and Exchange Board of India reported in
(2017) 5 SCC 517 and Neelima Mishra v/s Harinder Kaur Paintal reported
in (1990) 2 SCC 746.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Paragraph - 16 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the
case of Raymond Limited (supra) had held as under:-
"16. It is true that Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act does not refer
to Section 32 but the same, in our opinion, was not necessary. Sub-
section (4) of Section 56 was inserted by way of a State Amendment. The
intention of the legislature in inserting the said provision is clear and
explicit as by reason thereof a power of revision has been conferred upon
the highest authority of Revenue in the State, viz., Board of Revenue. The
revisional power is to be exercised by the Board of Revenue either on its
own motion or on an application by any party. The term "any party" used
in the said provision is of some significance. By reason of the said
provision, not only the State but also the person who had filed an
application under Section 31 of the Act, thus, may file a revision
application before the Board of Revenue. The terms "any party",
therefore, implies both the parties to the lis and not the party filing an
application under Section 34 of the Act alone. The revisional power is
to be exercised by the Board so as to enable it to satisfy itself in
regard to the amount with which the instrument is chargeable with
duty. The revisional proceeding has a direct nexus with determination of
an instrument being charged with duty and not the endorsement made
thereupon at a subsequent stage."
[Emphasis Supplied]
12. In the case of Naresh Kumar v/s State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
(2019) 9 SCC 416, the Apex Court has held that it is well settled law that the
power of Review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same.
Paragraph - 13 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:-
"13. It is settled law that the power of Review can be exercised only
when the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any such
provision in the concerned statute, such power of Review cannot be
exercised by the authority concerned. This Court in the case of
Kalabharti Advertising v/s Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Others
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437, has held as under:-******
12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so
permit, the review application is not maintainable i n case of
judicial/quasijudicial orders. In the absence of any provision
in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest
that a review could not be made and the order in review, if
passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction."
[Emphasis Supplied]
13. In light of the aforesaid judgments, the learned Single Judge was
justified in dismissing the writ petition by relegating the appellant to avail the
alternative remedy available under Section 56 of the Act of 1899. Even
otherwise, the appellant has failed to point out any provision of law under the
Act of 1899 under which the Collector of Stamp can review its own order. The
order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffers from any material
irregularity and perversity. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
13. Resultanty, the present Writ Appeal sans merit and is hereby
dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby upheld.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
