2024 (5) TMI 1101 - HC - Indian Laws

Collector lacks power to recall orders under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act 1899

SMT. SHIVANI CHAURASIA AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The Allahabad HC held that the Collector (Stamp) lacks inherent or statutory power to recall or review orders passed under Section 47-A of the Indian ... Jurisdiction - power of Collector (Stamp) to recall or review an order by him under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - orgery of certain documents - whether the Collector (Stamp) who acts as a quasi-judicial authority possesses any power, inherent or statutory, to recall/review an order passed under Section 47-A of the Act? - HELD THAT:- Upon a perusal of the Act, it is apparent that no such power seems to be made available to the Collector. The Division Bench of this Court in Milap Chandra Jain’s case 1988 (7) TMI 420 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] examined this particular issue and held that 'The submission cannot be accepted as sub-section (4) comes into play only if the matter had not already been referred to the Collector under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 47-A. In the present case, the dispute had already been specifically referred to and answered by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act.' The Collector (Stamp) cannot recall and/or review his own order as no such power has been conferred under Section 47-A of the Act. A quasi-judicial authority is limited in its functionality in as much as it has to act within the four corners of the statute from which it derives its authority. If the statute does not provide for a particular act, the same cannot be undertaken by that authority. Any such action taken de hors the legislative intent would amount to an overreach and beyond the power of the said authority. The rationale behind limiting the review powers of quasi-judicial authorities lies in ensuring adherence to the principle of separation of powers and preserving the integrity of the legislative scheme. Quasi-judicial authorities, being creatures of statute, must operate within the boundaries set forth by the legislature and therefore they cannot exceed their statutory mandate - The legislature, in its wisdom, may choose to grant limited review powers to certain quasi-judicial authorities based on the nature of the disputes they adjudicate and the need for effective administration of justice. In the instant case, it is clear that no such power was present with the Collector (Stamp), and therefore, the exercise of review carried out by the Collector (Stamp) is bad in law. In light of the same, the impugned order dated February 3, 2023 is quashed and set-aside - the writ petition is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Power of the Collector (Stamp) to recall or review an order under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.2. Legality of the second notice issued by the Collector (Stamp).3. Inquiry against the Sub Registrar regarding alleged forgery and fabricated report.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Power of the Collector (Stamp) to Recall or Review an Order under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899:The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the Collector (Stamp) possesses the power to recall or review an order passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioners argued that the Collector lacks such power, citing precedents from the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and a Coordinate Bench, which held that quasi-judicial authorities do not have inherent powers of review unless expressly conferred by the statute. The court referred to the case of *Milap Chandra Jain vs. State of U.P.* and *Sunil Kumar vs. State of U.P.*, which emphasized that the power to review must be explicitly provided by law. The court concluded that the Collector (Stamp) does not have the statutory power to recall or review an order under Section 47-A, making the exercise of review by the Collector (Stamp) legally untenable.2. Legality of the Second Notice Issued by the Collector (Stamp):The second notice issued by the Collector (Stamp) on December 31, 2020, based on a complaint by a private individual, was challenged by the petitioners. They contended that the initial order dated December 9, 2020, was final and not an ex-parte order, and thus could not be reopened. The court held that since the Collector (Stamp) lacks the power to review his own orders, the second notice and the subsequent order dated February 3, 2023, were illegal. The court quashed the impugned order and set it aside, allowing the writ petition.3. Inquiry Against the Sub Registrar Regarding Alleged Forgery and Fabricated Report:During the proceedings, it was revealed that an inquiry was initiated against the Sub Registrar based on allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents. A show cause notice was issued to the Sub Registrar, who provided an explanation. However, the court noted that the affidavit filed by the State respondents was incomplete and did not specify the steps taken after the Sub Registrar's explanation. The court emphasized the importance of transparency, accountability, and the pursuit of justice in legal proceedings. It directed the Principal Secretary, Stamp and Registration, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to continue and conclude the inquiry against the Sub Registrar within six months and submit a report to the court. The Registrar (Compliance) was instructed to communicate this order to the Principal Secretary.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Collector (Stamp) does not have the power to recall or review an order under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Consequently, the impugned order dated February 3, 2023, was quashed. The court also directed the Principal Secretary, Stamp and Registration, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to ensure a thorough inquiry into the allegations against the Sub Registrar and submit a report within six months. There was no order as to costs.