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
