Grounds for revision and appeal : UP Stamp Act

Grounds for revision and appeal :UP Stamp Act

Provisions for both revision and appeal are contained in CHAPTER –VI titled as REFERENCE AND REVISION in THE INDIAN STAMP ACT, 1899 (AS AMENDED AND APPLICABLE IN UTTAR PRADESH) which are as under:

56. Control of, and statement of case to, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.-

(1) The power exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and Chapter V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 26 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

*[(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, any person including the Government aggrieved by an order of the Collector under Chapter-IV, Chapter-V or under clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 26 may, within 60 days from the date of receipt of such order prefer an appeal against such order to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, who shall after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard  consider the case and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper and the order so passed shall be final.

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on 4th January 2013 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57850 of 2009 titled as Gaurav Aseem Avtej Versus The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad and others has held that both the provisions of revision and appeal are available to an aggrieved person while holding that Sub-section (1-A) of section 56 of the Act as inserted by the U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001 is constitutionally valid. It further held that  If a revision is preferred under sub-section (1) of section 56 of the Act then there is no requirement of deposit of 1/3rd of the disputed amount of deficient stamp duty including interest or penalty, if any while filing an application for grant of interim relief. 

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-C No. 1303 of 2012 titled as Shiv Kumar Rungta Vs. State of U.P. and Others on August 31, 2012 said “The revision against the order passed under Section 47-A of the Act is maintained under Section 56 of the Act by virtue of the controlling power exercisable by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority over the Collector in matters under Chapters 4 and 5 of the Act which includes 47-A of the Act. This controlling power has been conferred to check loss of revenue and to secure its enhancement but not to satisfy any disappointment suffered by any individual who is actually not a "person interested or aggrieved. The controlling power of the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 56 of the Act is on the administrative side and not to revise the orders passed by the sub-ordinate authorities, as against the orders of sub-ordinate authorities a remedy of appeal has been separately provided under Section 56 (1-A) of the Act. The legislature normally would not have envisaged for providing two remedies against the orders of the Sub-ordinate authority.”

Grounds for Revision

Since no specific grounds have been stated in the Indian Stamp Act upon which Revision Petition may be preferred, it would be beneficial to see similar provision of CPC, as guiding principles, which says (section 115) that a revision petition lies against any order in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears—

 (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or

 (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or

 (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Associated Cement Co.Ltd. v. Keshvanand reported as (1998) 1 SCC 687 has said:

It is trite legal position that appellate jurisdiction is coextensive with original court's jurisdiction as for appraisal and appreciation of evidence and reaching findings on facts and appellate court is free to reach its own conclusion on evidence untrammeled by any finding entered by the trial court. Reversional powers on the other hand belong to supervisory jurisdiction of a superior court. While exercising reversional powers the court has to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and also whether the subordinate court has kept itself within the bounds of its jurisdiction vested in it. Though the difference between the two jurisdictions is subtle, it is quite real and has now become well recognised in legal provinces.

Division bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Jugal Kishore vs State Of U. P., Lucknow And Others on 30 October, 1991 citations: AIR 1992 All 194 http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/619092/ with respect to orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Finance on merits that the circle did not truly and correctly represent the correct market value of the property has ruled at Para 8 “Under sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Stamp Act, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has been authorised to look into all such matters and pass appropriate orders. A revision is maintainable against the impugned orders”

Hon’ble Apex court in Sri. Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works And ... vs Rangaswamy Chettiar on 26 March, 1980t citations: AIR 1980 SC 1253, (1980) 4 SCC 259, 1980 (12) UJ 610 SC has, at Para 2,  said ["Appeal" and "revision" are expression of common usage in Indian statutes and the distinction between "appellate jurisdiction" & revisional jurisdiction is well know though not well defined. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing, as it were, on law as well as fact and is invoked by an aggrieved person. Such jurisdiction may, however, be limited in some way as, for instance has been done in the case of second appeals under the CPC and under some Rent Acts in some States. Ordinarily, again, revisional jurisdiction is analogous to a power of superintendence and may some times be exercised even without its being invoked by a party. The extent of revisional jurisdiction is defined by the statute conferring such jurisdiction. The conferment of revisional jurisdiction is generally for the purpose of keeping tribunals subordinate to the revising tribunal within the bounds of their authority to make them act according to law, according to the procedure established by law and according to well defined principles of justice. Revisional jurisdiction as ordinarily understood with reference to our statutes is always included in appellate jurisdiction but not vice-versa. There are general observations. The question of the extent of appellate or revisional jurisdiction has to be considered in each case with reference to the language employed by the state.]

Full Bench of Allahabad High  Court in the case of Shri Ramesh Chandra Srivastava, Kanpur v. State of U.P. and others; 2007 UPTC 335 held that the market value of the property has to be determined with reference to the date on which the document is executed. The valuation cannot be determined straightway on such an assumption that the land is situated in close proximity of abadi area or on the presumption that the land is to be used for a purpose other than the agriculture. As averred above, the Full Bench of this Court has clearly held on the basis of the various provisions of the Stamp Act, that the market value is to be determined with reference to the date on which the document was executed and that any subsequent change in the nature or use of the land which may result in the enhancement of the market value of the property was not to be taken into account.

Grounds for appeal:

In the grounds of objection against a finding of fact it has to be shown, how the decision arrived at by the lower court is against the weight of evidence, how the facts and circumstances require it to be altered and make it erroneous. Errors of law may also be pointed out. The grounds should be consistent with the case put up in the Lower Court. No new plea/ground, not taken in the pleadings and on which no issue was framed nor evidence was led, should be raised unless it is a pure question  of law or a point which goes to the root of the case, e. a. question of jurisdiction or res judicata etc [Mogha’s law of pleading]

fact recorded by the courts below are perverse, being based on no evidence and  have been recorded by a misapplication of the law.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

 
Court No. - 34 

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1410 of 2014 

Petitioner :- Srinath Giri 

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwini Kumar Srivastava,Ganesh Shankar Srivastava 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. 

1.    Counsel for parties agreed that since a pure question of law has been raised, this matter may be decided at this stage under the Rules of the Court and respondents do not propose to file any counter affidavit. 

2.    Petitioner's application for grant of interim relief in Revision No. 9 of 2013 preferred under Section 56 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1899") has been declined  by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi by order dated 16.12.2013 only on the ground that Revisionist has not adduced any evidence of deposit of 1/3rd of disputed amount in the Treasury. 

3.    A Full Bench of this Court in Gaurav Aseem Avtej Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. and Others 2013 (1) ADJ 442, while considering the constitutional validity of amendment made in Section 56 of Act, 1899 vide U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001, has clearly held that by insertion of Section 1-A in Section 56, Sub-Section (1) is not stand deleted. If a revision is preferred under Section (1) of Section 56, there is no requirement of deposit of 1/3rd of the disputed amount of deficient stamp duty including interest or penalty, while filing application for grant of interim relief. While answering the question no. 2 referred to Full Bench, it said: 

"(2) If a revision is preferred under sub-Section (1) of Section 56 of Act then there is no requirement of deposit of 1/3rd of the disputed amount of deficient stamp duty including interest or penalty, if any while filing an application for grant of interim relief." 

4.    In the present case, the Revisional Court has totally misdirected itself by not looking into the aforesaid law laid down by Full Bench of this Court as long back as on 4.1.2013 and it is really strange that Revisional Court has not updated itself with the law laid down by this Court long back with respect to manner in which appeals and revisional are to be filed and entertained by the authority concerned. 

5.    In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned revisional order dated 16.12.2013, to the extent it has declined to consider the application for interim relief filed by petitioner before Revisional Court, is hereby quashed. Revisional Court is directed to consider petitioner's application for interim relief in accordance with law and pass appropriate order expeditiously, and, in any case, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 

Dt. 10.01.2014