Shree Natural Estate vs State of Chhattisgarh

T.P. Sharma, J.—By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 16.8.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./14/R-B-105/ 249/2009, whereby the order passed by the Collector of Stamps, Raipur u/s 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1889 (for short ''the Act, 1889'') has been reversed. As per order impugned, being aggrieved by the order dated 2.4.2009 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Raipur in Revenue Case No. 59/B-105/2007-08, the petitioner has challenged the order before the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./14/R-B-105/249/2009 u/s 50 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ''the Code''). After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Board of Revenue has quashed the order passed by the Collector or Stamps relating to valuation of the property for registration of instrument and has valued the transaction as 6.5 lacs and directed for payment of stamp duty.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents filed on behalf of the petitioner.

Apart from the argument relating to legality and propriety of the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Board of Revenue was not having jurisdiction to entertain the revision u/s 50 of the Code. The order passed by the Collector of Stamps was not the order under the Code, therefore, such order was not revisable, although, in case of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority the Board of Revenue was having jurisdiction to deal with the matter u/s 56(4) of the Act, 1889 as applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh, but the powers exercisable u/s 56(1) of the Act, 1889 has been delegated by the State Government to the Inspector general of Registration u/s 76A of the Act, 1889, therefore, the Board of Revenue was not having jurisdiction to entertain the revision and has passed the order impugned. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is without jurisdiction and was of nullity.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 and leaned counsel for respondent No. 3 opposed the petition and argued that the Board of Revenue is the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority u/s 7 of the Code and was competent to exercise the jurisdiction u/s 56(4) of the Act, 1889.

Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Trideshwar Dayal and Another Vs. Maheshwar Dayal and Others, in which the Supreme Court has held that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority can correct the erroneous order passed by the Collector in exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 56 of the Act, 1889.

The Board of Revenue is also the Chief Revenue Authority or Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in accordance with Section 7 of the Code and the Board of Revenue is empowered to exercise the power under the Code. Thus, the Board of Revenue being the Chief Revenue Authority or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is empowered to exercise the power conferred or may be conferred by or under any Central or State Act on the Chief Revenue Authority or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Section 7 of the Code reads as under:-

Jurisdiction of Board.-(1) The Board shall exercise the powers and discharge the functions conferred upon it by or under this Code and such functions of the State Government as may be specification by the State Government in that behalf and such other functions as have been conferred or may be conferred by or under any Central or State Act on the Chief Revenue Authority or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

(2) The State Government may, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose, by notification, confer upon, or entrust to the Board or any member of the Board additional powers or functions assigned to the State Government by or under any enactment for the time being in force.

The Board of Revenue is not competent to entertain the revision u/s 50 of the Code, but is competent to entertain and decide the revision against the order passed by the Collector of Stamps u/s 56(4) of the Act, 1889, as applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh. The State Government is competent to delegate certain powers by the notification to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority or Subordinate Revenue Authority under the provisions of Section 76A of the Act, 1889 which reads as under:-

76-A. Delegation of certain powers.- The State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette delegate,-

(a) all or any of the powers conferred on it by Sections 2(9), 33(3)(b), 70(1), 74 and 78 and 78 to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority; and

(b) all or any of the powers conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by Sections 45(1)(2), 56(1) and 70(2) to such Subordinate Revenue Authority as may be specified in the notification.

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Section 76A of the Act, 1889, the then State of Madhya Pradesh (undivided State of Madhya Pradesh) has delegated the powers conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 56 and sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Act, 1889. Vide notification dated 7th/16th January, 1991 upon the Inspector General of Registration and the Superintendent of Stamps by following Notification No. 14-1385-VI-R, dated the 7th/16th January, 1981.-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of section 76A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ( No. II of 1899), the State Government hereby delegates to the Inspector General of Registration and the Superintendent of Stamps, Madhya Pradesh, the powers Conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 56 and sub-section (2) of section 70 of the said Act.

After delegation of powers exercisable by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority i.e. Board of Revenue u/s 56(1) of the Act, 1899 by the State Government upon the Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of Stamps, jurisdiction vested upon the Board of Revenue in terms of Section 7 of the Code has been ceased and the Board of Revenue is precluded from exercising the jurisdiction u/s 56(1) and 56(4) of the Act, 1899 as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. After the aforesaid notification, the Board of Revenue was not competent to entertain the revision against the order passed by the Collector of Stamps u/s 50 of the Code and u/s 56 of the Act, 1899, therefore, the order impugned dated 16.8.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./14/ R-B-105/249/2009 was without jurisdiction and was of nullity. Such order is not sustainable under the law. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 16.8.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue revision Case No. R.N./14/R-B-105/249/2009 is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that parties aggrieved are at liberty to approach the authority whom power u/s 56(1) of the Act, 1899 has been delegated by the State Government u/s 76A(a) & (b) of the Act, 1899 i.e. the Inspector general of Registration and the Superintendent of Stamps. No order as to costs.