ivil Appeal No 5055 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 2721989 of the Allahabad High Court in CMWP No 12322 of 1984
Satish Chandra EC Agarwala Atul Sharma Ms Purnima Bhatt and VK Pandita for the Appellants
GL Sanghi BD Agarwal G Ganesh KL John and Ms Shobha Dikshit for the Respondents
531 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
This case arises out of a proceeding under the Indian Stamp Act 1899
Special leave is granted
A dispute between the appellants and the respondent No 1 who are members of a family was referred to an arbitrator who made an award on 9101973 and filed the same within a few days before the civil court for making it a rule of the court
On objection by the present appellants the prayer was rejected on 1831976 and the order was confirmed by the High Court on 371981 in a regular first appeal
An application for special leave was dismissed by this Court on 1841983 and a prayer for review was also rejected
It is stated on behalf of the appellants that in the meantime the respondent No1 applied before the Collec tor for summoning the award and realising the duty and penalty
A copy of the award was annexed to the application
The respondent s prayer was opposed by the appellants but was allowed by the Collector on 1571983 and on a request made to the civil court for sending the award the civil court asked the office to do so
The appellants moved the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act hereinafter referred to as the Act against the Collector s order dated 1571983
The Authority in exercise of its revisional power set aside the impugned order of the Collector inter alia on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
The respondent challenged this judgment before the High Court in a writ case which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 2721989
The matter was remanded to the Collector to decide the case afresh in the light of the observations
The High Court also doubted the power of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to entertain the appellants  application under section 56 of the Act
This judg ment is the subject matter of the present appeal
Mr Satish Chander the learned counsel for the appellants contended that there cannot be any doubt about the power of the Chief Controlling Authority to correct an erroneous order of the Collector
Emphasis was laid on the language of section 56 suggesting its wide application
The learned counsel was also right in arguing that the Authority is not only vested with jurisdiction but has the duty to quash an order passed by the Collector purporting to be under Chapters IV and V of the Act by exercising power beyond his jurisdiction
To hold otherwise will lead to an absurd situation where a subordinate authority makes an order beyond its jurisdiction which will have to be suf fered on account of its unassailability before a higher 532 authority
This Court in Janardan Reddy and Others vs The State of Hyderabad and Others   after refer ring to a number of decisions observed that it is well settled that if a court acts without jurisdiction its decision can be challenged in the same way as it would have been challenged if it had acted with jurisdiction ie an appeal would lie to the court to which it would lie if its order was with jurisdiction
We therefore agree with the appellants that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had full power to interfere with the Collector s order provided it was found to be erroneous
Their difficulty however is that we do not find any defect in the Collector directing to take steps for the realisation of the stamp duty
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the respondent No 1 had no locus standi to move the Collector for impounding the award and sub section 1 of section 33 of the Act had no application
The learned counsel proceeded to say that in the circumstances it has to be assumed that the Collector acted suo motu under sub section 4 of the said section and since the proviso to sub section 5 directs that no action under sub section 4 shall be taken after a period of four years from the date of execution of the instrument the Collector had no authority to pass the impugned order after about a decade
In reply Mr GL Sanghi urged that the order for impounding the award was passed by the civil court itself on 1831976 and the further orders of the Collector dated 2271983 and of the civil court dated 2781983 were passed merely by way of implementing the same
The learned counsel is right in relying upon the concluding portion of the order of the civil court dated 1831976 directing the impounding of the award and sending it to the Collector for necessary action
It is true that further steps in pursuance of this judgment were not taken promptly and it was the respondent No 1 who drew the attention to this aspect but it cannot be legiti mately suggested that as the reminder for implementing the order came from the respondent who was motivated by a desire to salvage the situation to his advantage further steps could not be taken
There is no question of limitation arising in this situation and it cannot be said that what had to be done promptly in 1976 would not be done later
The orders of the Collector dated 1571983 and 2271983 must therefore in the circumstances be held to have been passed as the follow up steps in pursuance of the civil court s direction dated 1831976 and no valid objection can be taken against them
The Collector therefore shall have to proceed further for realisation of the escaped duty
It was next contended that in any event the Collector did not 533 have the power to enquire into the correct valuation of the property which was the subject matter of the award
Reliance was placed on the observations in Himalaya House Co Ltd Bombay vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority There is no merit in this point either
The case comes from Uttar Pradesh where express provisions have been made by the insertion of section 47 A authorising the Collector to examine the correctness of the valuation
Lastly Mr Satish Chandra argued that the respondent No 1 is taking keen interest in the present proceeding in an attempt to illegally re open the question of making the award a rule of the court which stood concluded by the impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of this Court dismissing the special leave petition therefrom and he can not be allowed to do so
The reply of Mr Sanghi has been that this aspect is not relevant in the present pro ceeding for realisation of the duty and need not be decided at this stage
His stand is that an award which is not made rule of the court is not a useless piece of paper and can be of some use say by way of defence in a suit
He said that this question will have to be considered if and when the occasion arises
Having regard to the limited scope of the present proceeding we agree with Mr Sanghi that we may not go into this aspect in the present case but we would clari fy the position that on the strength of the present judgment it will not be open to the respondent to urge that the effect of the High Court decision dated 871981 and the orders of this Court dismissing the special leave petition therefrom and later the review application has disappeared or has got modified
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms but the parties are directed to bear their own costs of this Court
GN Appeal disposed of


Summary:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of Respondent No 1 as Deputy Prime Minister of India on the ground that the oath administered to him as such was not the oath in accordance with the prescription of the Constitution
The petition was contested by Respondent No 1 and the Union of India
It was contended for the latter that de scribing Respondent No 1 as Deputy Prime Minister was descriptive and for all purposes he was a Minister that the form of oath prescribed in the Third Schedule pursuant to the requirement of Article 754 of the Constitution is only for a Minister of the Union and that there was no separate form even for the Prime Minister
It was further submitted that the prescribed oath is susceptible of division into two parts descriptive and substantial and as long as the substantial part is properly followed as in the instant case a mere mistake or error in the descriptive part would not vitiate the oath
Dismissing the writ petition HELD Respondent No 1 is just a Minister like other Members of the Council of Ministers though he has been described as Deputy Prime Minister
The description of him as Deputy Prime Minister does not confer on him any power of Prime Minister
It cannot therefore be said that the oath administered to him as Deputy Prime Minister was not the oath in accordance with the prescription of the Constitution
3E 2D