/^~-\ ^p BEFORE HON'BLE mGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH ^M^- AT BILASPUR W.P. N0.-:7.^.'^.?.../2003 PETITIONER:- 1 ..^ISai .<4lJsi'si31s' ^Sf*"' GAUTAMCHADJAIN S/0 SHOBHA JAIN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/0 SATTI CAHURA GANJPARA, DURG TAH & DISTT. DURG.(C.G) SMT TARUN LATA JAIN W/0 SHRI IEEWAN JAIN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/0 SATTI CAHURA GANJPARA, DURG TAH & DISTT. DURG.(C.G) VERSUS .-y^-^y^. .••• ^y^"'" RESPONDENTS:- 1 ..^"^ ^^;.A--"- &-' ,^ STATE OF CHHATHSGARH THROUGH: COLLECTOROF STAMP DURG TAH. & DISTT. DURG .(C.G.). BOARD OF REVENUE CIRCUIT COURT RAIPUR TAH & DISTT. RAIPUR (C.G.) /RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA s-e?sss!__ u 't:@*~s sm iWi'8 M o r'o ttl-j 3o •K! o 1:1 C7mw Q ^,..,. ( w ,M ;0 ^ r \ p s ® t/i £,x» §<! .!•» % § Qo §• ftio-h Q ^'.'.'"f" (.n 'ii:so c' D- § f!l ^ "'i. (.ll'll £;: i-f.', 1 £:> ("l 1 C;..| o (5 § 0| fi> lc!.. ""ih Iw ,0 10 1(,1» (..1 CS'i Q iC !•=< |C |(:7 IM i<'"> IC l;e |m 1(~> 1:1!S- 11.-.1 'tn ISt- S7 :E 3!l>.-I w (...) '^/' V \} COURT OF JUbICATURE. CHH.4TTIS&4RH ,4T Tl *^*-l^Fi "^T 'rit Petition No. 3449 of 2003 Sautam Chand Jain and another Versus itate of Chhatrisaarh aid u'lOther 'resenT: Shri V.6. Tamaskar, Advocate ror the petitioners. Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, Qov*. Advocate for the Stat OR b passed on^j^"January, 2004) _ue.i:_i»..^-_._ Shadoo J. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the leyul| propriety of the order dated 6-5-2003, Annexure-P/1, pass^ f^a£ D^i/eyii iS /'^^'=.=? l^ /^n.!i^A Oc-^^Sni5?' i RSVC'riUS', ^ii'^Ui S ^UUi'i , FtUipUE'. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that| he petitioners had Jointly purchased plot of land bearing Khasra No.51/§ patwari halka LiHQSr riraH^ii F, VQIiGiTy uf by t*ne Boarc No.19, situated at vii'lage Borsi, area 0.444 hectare, Tehsil ar] through a deed dated 17-1-2001 for a consideration o| from one Shri Saty'endra Chaid Jain. Thereafter, on 12-4-| . i'i"4'fi? f^ Mn 1 .1 1++. No.f; appornred peTiTioner' NO.I as generai power OT aTTorne,| to deal with the aforesaid lan-d for the purposes of ^ yift etc. and based o'n thut power of att'orney, petitioner No portion of iand to one Shri 6hanshyam Sahu on 16-1-2002. f\ :ri-i-5:-'3^ ^•-4' t\ UISTnCT UUF De ^ 5c nnn/. ^iS.t,^^,^W/ ^l ^?4-i-i'5r.fr-;g-?--3 ^l, pSi ;1iGfi£ r, execuTinq a 3€rViSiGH, SdS'S, also soid srTictil @ 3. An audit objection was raised by the department ma^ attorney has executed on u stamp of Rs.100/-, whereas i executed on the valuation of market value of the proper'l the tune of Rs.7.50 on that market value of property ought to on the document of power' of attomey aid the petitioners (plGilt rrie power OT auaht to have ^^-4 -?4-,--?wi^. -?-,- UHU 2SiUi!1p iU ave bsen puid (XSK^G TO The petitioners fiied objection/repiy, Annexure-P/2. lowever, Tne -^^ 'lillectc-r of Stamp, Durg, vide order dated 26-4-2002, \ Annexure-P, ttie stamp dmy to the tune of Rs.39,995/-. Agd petitioners filed an appeal before fne Board of Ravenue. Revenue dismisssd the soiely on the ground that the up .,+ .,,1.,;.,]- +I,,s 3i ViStiii^iii liiS' ri^ - n - -.- J ^j1' 1 H& tSOQiO OT .-! ..,„" l-...—».i >Ui WU—>Ui^i i SU by liiTiitation. Ths ordcr of ths Board of Kcvcnue Is AnnBxun O. J.T HS^ Ds^n fHCriT!Ofi€0 Ifi Tn€ pSTiTIOH TfiuT TM© pSTl^ application before the Collector of Stamp, Durg on 27-4-20( the certified copy of the order duted 26.04.2002 and the cd »^i'..-.-^.j ^.^ -*.!-- ^--:-:„•------- -.- •"^ '•5 '^ft/^'5 A'--—-^ was ueiiverea TO Tns peTiTioners on iy-3-cuuo, Tner'eTore, fi!ed on'2-4-2003. However, in support of the appeal wi condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act wss aiso fi!ed. h'owever. the learned Board of Revenue dismii summariiy holding that the appeal was barred by limitation w] TO TH©luW, JUSTICd GnG S^UiT^< 6. I have heard Mr. V.6. Tamaskar, lear'ned counsel for and Mr. Raibir Singh Marhas, 'Sovt. Advocate fo" the Stat^ impugned order. In the first puragraph of the order the i| Board has observed that the cppeai has been fi'ed under Sc Land Revenue Act, whereas the appeal ought to have been fil^ 47 of fne Indian Stamp Act, 1899, therefore, the appeal has the wrong provisions of law and on account of that th^ entertainable. The second ground on which fne appeai has b| M -C: I - J :H^iS TiiaQ Gn tor obtcilnlfig f of the same le appeai was ppliCuiiori TOf fl.^»^-...,»«D /S"^ ^fifisxurs'T/ <j/ Bd the uppeal dpe,rused the trnea Kevenue in 44(1) of ths under Section ;en filed under Gpp€,u1 iS HOT [;.„.„lccar1 ',S 'i> aisrnissfcu is (^) *lthat the Kevenue Board has held that t-he perusal of the reveals that the application was fi'ed on 27-4-2Q02 on whicfl appeararice of the petitioners was yiven as 18-5-2002, but } Wsnt to COilsct thg COpy ou 19-3-2003 whsreas thc eopy wo^ for dgHvcry on 31-5-20Q2. Thcrsforc, the ground for condo| shown in the application that the copy not deliver^ upproaching many times for obtaining the copy cannot be tak^ cause TO" conaoning Tne aeiay. 7. As far as firs,t ground is concerned, in my opinion, the l® &^i/^yii|j^ E^li^k-j- -1-n h^VS? ^-sins:'.=l^^^rj 44^^ ^^in^^l •=1-£ Ah^ nssl i°%&¥S'iii-iSi i^Wvii 1 i l\^ i lukVSi ^ii/i i^i^iiEii &')«<? iif& i^i-?u^'*»ii t/i lii n-nl nf +k. .-_^1., L.. F=i,i*i ',S !aRf=9^es^es= S,S\S~-"-S-^? ^\f »-¥i^i^-S-;,=i^jR.=a -S-S^S ia;l°r'°.i?a,~ ^t y3r-^»/i£<ij •USy?iUiL?i& EIiUIii'i&i'. iV\^i'^iy Uy TiiSfi i iVfIiFiy i HS VuTUny pi'W i5i^ rit ppeal ought not to have rejected technically. The peti' have been given chance to correct the provisions ot law vt¥\ provisions of Section 47(A)(iv) of the Indian Stamp ,4ct, 1899 were entitled to file an uppeal before the Board. she learned have considered the appea! on its mer'its by giving opportun| cerrect ths provislGns of Isw. irtified copy the date for e Detitioners tiiS.SGy i€GQy Tion OT deiuy even after e?i i°?>^Ti/"•:£?>-'' oil^ i i i^i' rt - -.- J - £. H€Q ISOuFO OT 4-:iiwfiS'iS ifi U ^ 1^;- -^-1-3. 5 Ui iUW iisSr lers ouanT TO 1 uS (p^i le petitioners sard ouaht to 1 TO Tn£m TC -1.^ -1. Now, coming to the second ground for dismissal of tl| admitted position that the cspplication was made on the next dd i.e. on 27-4-2002 a"d the copy of the same was delivered to on 19-3-2003. Tne on!y question is that as observed by ths U ioard thut on ths application the date of prepar'ution of the mentioned us 31-5-2002, fnerefore, it cannot be considered 1, iroaching by the petitioners the office has not supplied t| petitioners. But the petitioners filed an appiication under S^ Limitation Act SupporTod with the affiaavit in which they men copy' of the order was not deiivered to thern after appr^ times. In the facts aid circumstances of the case, the i^ Board ought to have considered their uppiication under 5a Limitution Act. •U;. l i li? ^ ^. A a-j ^l „M„Q ^ V i i i JC-- ^i Viitu-t "S- p&TiTIOfs^iS rned Revenue iplicction wus it even atter ^ e=tf=,: f -i--, *i--i ,5? \^\^u y iv ii tion 5 of the sned that the :ning so many 'ned Revenue ;^- K ,-f +t,-» \f 1 11 r 1b---^ 1. 9. Moreover, the appsa! was within limitation from the date of the delivery of the copy of ine c-rder and there is nothing in ths order which goes to show that any contrar,i' affic'avit was filed by the office that the petitioners had not approached for taking the delivery of the copy. T-herefore. in fne facts and circumstances, the iearned Revenue Board ought to have considered the appjication of the petitioners with a pragmatic approach ana' ought to have decided the matte" on merits unless fflid until the matter is hopelessly barred. 10. In fne resui't, I am of the opinion that it is a fit in which the ifflDuaned order of the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained and the same should be set aside and the learned Board of Revenue should be directed to decide the appea' on its own merits. Therefore, the ifflpugned order passed •by the Board of Revenue is set aside. Tne case is "emgnded back to the Revenue Board und the Revenue Board is directed to decide the on its own merits considering the appeg,! within limitution. The petjtioners may be asked to correct the provisions'of law under which the appeal has been fi!ed. 11. Wi-rii the directions aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- , L.C.BHADOO Judge -2T-1.2004 f ww