AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 409 words@DELETEUPPERDATA
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Abhijeet Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25th May, 2011 passed by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur in Appeal No. 11 of 2011 is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the appeal under section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as an "Act") should have been heard by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that in view of law settled by this Court, the appeal was to be heard by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P.
I have carefully considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties.
It is not in dispute that the appeal under section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act was to be heard and decided by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is without jurisdiction.
The Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6600 (MS) of 2009, Neetu Agarwal and another v. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others decided on 17.12.2009 has held that the appellate power exercisable under section 56(1-A) of the Act by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue cannot be exercised by any subordinate Revenue Authority. The S.L.P. preferred against the aforesaid judgment and order of the Lucknow Bench has been dismissed by Hon''ble Supreme Court vide order dated 3.1.2012.
The said judgment and order has been followed by another Bench of this Court in judgment and order dated 14.6.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 33694 of 2003, Yogesh Kumar and 3 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others and it has been held that the appellate power under section 56(1-A) of the Act is only exercisable by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue.
In view of the above noted settled legal position, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25th May, 2011 passed by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur in appeal No. 11 of 2011 is hereby set aside. The appeal is restored to its original number. Respondent No. 2 is directed to remit the records of the appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P., who shall consider and decide the appeal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above.