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

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 Stamp Act, 1899. The court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must operate within statutory boundaries and cannot exceed their legislative mandate. Since the Act provides no review mechanism for the Collector, any such exercise constitutes an overreach of authority. The court quashed the impugned order dated February 3, 2023, and allowed the writ petition, reaffirming that quasi-judicial bodies are creatures of statute bound by separation of powers principles.

---

---

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.

---