N. Kandasamy alias K.K. Ram vs The Board of Revenue (Land Revenue), Prohibition and Excise and Another

T. Sathiadev, J.—Petitioner being aggrieved with the orders of the first respondent holding that the deed, dated 20th August, 1975,

executed by Palaniswamy Pillai and three others, is only a settlement, within the meaning of Section 2(24)(c) of the Indian Stamp. Act, has filed this

writ petition. The first respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner that stamp duty is leviable only under Article 64 in Schedule I of the said Act.

Mr. Balathandapani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that when orders have been passed by first respondent, determining that the

duty is leviable only u/s 2(24)(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, and that only one half of the duty, would be payable in the light of the orders issued

under (item 47) G.O.Ms. No. 1225, Revenue, dated 25th April, 1964, it is for this Court to construe the document and decide the nature of the

document, in exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

According to him, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras Vs. P.A. Muthukumar, ,

there could have been no difficulty for the respondents to understand the nature of the document.

Additional Government Pleader would resist this claim by stating that when the statute itself contemplates a reference to be made to the Court

u/s 57 of the Act, if the petitioner had been aggrieved, he should have asked for a reference and having failed to do so, he is precluded from raising

this plea in this petition. Even on the merits of the claim made, the Additional Government Pleader contends that the nature of the document had

been correctly determined, taking into account the recitals contained therein.

In Rustom Nusserwanjil Patel Vs. State of Madras and Another, , it has been held that if the matter is very plain and incapable of any

arguments, then the guiding principle for the authority, would be, to make the reference when the aggreived party seeks for such a reference. In the

instant case, petitioner had not asked for any reference and the first respondent has already rendered its decision.

As to whether, while filing this writ petition, a direction could be secured for making a reference u/s 57, in the light of the decision rendered in

Banarsi Das Ahluwalia Vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi, , even in a case where no such relief had been asked for, and order

had been already passed by first respondent, and not pending before him, a reference could be asked for by the affected party, it was held therein

as follows:

Section 57 affords a remedy to the citizen to have his case referred to the High Court against an order of a revenue authority imposing stamp duty

and/or penalty provided the application involves a substantial question or law and imposes a corresponding obligation on the authority to refer it to

the High Court for its opinion. Such a right and obligation cannot be construed to depend upon any subsidiary circumstance such as the pendency

of the case before the authority.

Therefore, even after the, orders have been passed, respondents could be asked to make a reference u/s 57 of the Act, by the affected party.

In N. Saradambal Ammal Vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, , it was held that when the affected party

approaches the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the orders of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, a direction can be

given, in spite of the matter having been finally disposed of.

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. S. Sarup Singh AIR 1960 Delhi 219, held that there is no need for any application

to be made for making the reference and that the Revenue Authority can act suo motu.

Therefore, when the petitioner has the remedy to ask for a reference to be made u/s 27 in spite of orders having been passed by the first

respondent, and since he has already filed a writ petition in this Court to quash the orders, it is now for him to make an application to first

respondent to make a reference u/s 57 of the Act.

Regarding the nature of the document, in matters of this nature, it is the document which will have to be looked into as pointed out in P.

Kulasekara Naidu and three Ors. v. Board of Revenue (Land Revenue by its Member), Madras-5 W.P. No. 3600 of 1979, and therefore, the

Revenue Authority should invariably refer to the decisions rendered by this Court in the earlier references made by it land disclose how the recitals

tally with documents already interpreted by Court so that it may absolve the need for making further references. It will also assist the affected

party, to realise that the conclusion arrived at that no substantial question of law is involved, is based on decisions of this Court and therefore, the

affected party may not be driven to the need of further litigating the matter.

Instead, the authority had merely looked into the document, and the grounds stated in paragraph 4 in the impugned order itself shows that there

is need for proper interpretation of the document, thus involving a sustantial question of law.

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed resulting in the setting aside of the impugned orders of the first respondent and it is for the petitioner to

file the necessary application for a reference to be made and on receipt of such application, the first respondent is to refer the matter u/s 57(1) of

the Act to this Court. No costs.