COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$FUR ($3: Hon’ble Mr. T.P.$HARMA, J.) Writ PetitioniArt.227! No.3231 G? 2M1 Shree Natura£ Estate VS. State of Chhattisgarh and others ST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER PO ‘ 5d]- T.P. Sharma/ Judge ON 51912011 HIGH CCWJRT OF CHHATTEGARH AT EILA$PUR Writ Petition (Art.227)No.3231 0f 2011 Shree Proprietor Natura! 5hr: DPGahdhi Estata Through $.10 s5; D.Prakash Rao, Aged about 58 yrs, Rajbandha Maidan; Raipur—(C‘GV) Petitianer Non-appiicant Versas Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through — The Sweeter of Stamps, Ramur (ca) Board of Revenue (3.3. Biiaspur, Circu§t Court, Raélaur r ’Appiicant 3. Smt.Chetna Surana W/e Shri Anand Surana,- Rio Civii Lines, Raipur, Tehsi! & DisttRaipur (Writ Petitian under Articie 227 of the Consiituiion of lndia) MLPIafuH Bharat; counset for the petitioner. Mr.Sushil Dubey, Gav:.Advocate fer respandent No.1IState. Mr‘Mano} Paranjape, counsel far respondent No.3. ($3: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. shame, J.) aRDER (Delivered on 5-9—201 1) 1. By this petition under Artieie 227‘ of the Constitution of india, the petitioner has chaiienged the iegaiity and propriety of the order dated 16.8.2010 (Annexure P/i) passed bythe Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision Case No.R.N./‘i4/R-B-105/249l20G9, whereby the order passed by the Coiiector of Stamps, Raipur under Section 47-A of the indian Stamp Act, t889 (for Short ‘the Act, 1889’) has been reversed. 2. As per order impugned, being aggrieved by the order dated 2.4.2009 passed by the Cotieotor of Stamps, Raipur in Revenue Case No.59lB- 105/2007—08, the petitioner has ‘chaiienged the order before the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision Case NORM/1 4/R—B-105/249/20G9 under Section 50 of the CG. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code’). After providing an opportunity oi hearing to the parties the Board Of Revenue has quashed the order passed by the Coiieotor of Stamps reiating to valuation of the property for registration of instrument and has valued the transaction as 8.5 lacs and olrected for payment of stamp duty. \ . g"\ 3. i have heard iearned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents filed on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Apart from the argument relating to iegattty and propriety of the order impugned, teamed counsetfor the petitioner argued that the Board of Revenue was not having jurisdiction to entertain the revision under Section 50 of the Code. The order passed'by the Coitector of Stamps was not the order under the Code, therefore, such order was not revietoabie, atthcugh, in case of the Chief Controiiing Revenue Authority the Board of Revenue was having iurisdiction to deal with the matter under Section 56 (4) of the Act, 1889 as applicable to the State of Chhatiiegarh, but the 2 powers exercisable under Section 56 (’i) of the Act, 1889 has been delegated by the State Government to the inspector General of Registration under Section 76-A of the Act, 18%, therefore, the Board of Revenue was not having jurisdiction to entertain the revision and has passed the order impugned. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is without jurisdiction and was of nullity. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and leaned counsel for respondent No.3 opposed the petition and argued that the Board oi Revenue is the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Sewon 7 of the Code and was competent to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 56(4) of the Act, 1889. S. Learned counsel placed reiiance in the matter of Trideshwar Dayal and another v. Mahashwar Dayai and others‘ in which the Supreme Court has held that the Chief Controiling Revenue Authority can correct the erroneous order passed by the Collector in exercise of revisionai iurisdiction under Section 56 of the Act, 1889. 7, The Eoard of Revenue is also the Chief Revenue Authority or Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in accordance with Section 7 of the Code and the Board of Revenue is empowered to exercise the power under the Code. Thus, the Board of Revenue being the Chief Revenue Authority or the Chief Contfoiling Revenue Authority is empowered to exercise the power conferred or may be conferred by or under any Central or State Act 1 . 1 AIR 199's so 435 4. . ‘r on the Chief Revenue Authority Gr the Chief Conirouing Revenue Authority. Section 7 of the Code reads as under:- “7. Jurisdiction of Board-(1) The Board shaii exercise the powers and discharge the functions conferred upon it by or under this Code and such functions of the State Government as may be specified by notification by the State Government in that behalf and such other functions as have been conferred or may be conferred by or under any Centrai or State Act on the Chief Revenue Authority or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. (2) The State Government may, subject to such conditions as it om confer neon, or entrust to the Board or any member of the Board additional powers or functions assigned to the State Government by or under any ehanctment for the time being in force.” 8. The Board of Revenue is not competent to entertain the revision under Section 50 of the Code, but is competent to entertain and dectde the revision against the order passed by the Colteotor of Stamps under Section 56(4) of the Act,‘ 1889, as appiicable to the State of Chhattisgarh‘ The State Government is competent to delegate certain powers by the notification to the Chief Controtiing Revenue Authority or Subordinate Revenue Authority under the provisions of Section 76—A of the Act, 1889 which reads as under:— “76—A. Delegation of certain powers-The State Government may by notificatton inthe Official Gazete deiegate,- (a) ail or any of the powers conferred on it by Sections 2(9), 33(3)(b), 70(1), 74 and 78 to the Chief Controiiing Revenue Authority; and (b) all or any of the powers conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by Sections 45(1 )(2), 56(1) and 70(2) to l such Subordinate Revenue Authority as may be ‘specified in the notification” 9. in exercise of the powers conferred by ciause (b) of Section ‘iS—A of the Act, 1889, the then State of Madhya Pradesh (undivided State of Madhya Pradesh) has deiegated the powers conferred on the Chief Controiling \, t ~ mm Revenue Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 56 and sub-section (2) cf Section 70 of the Agt, 1889. Vida notification dated 7W16‘“ Jamary, 1991 upon the Inspector Generai of Registration and the Superintendent of Stamps by foiiowing Notification No.14—1385-VI-R, dated the 7mi16‘“ January, 1981.-in exercise of the powers conferred by ciause (b) of section 76-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (No. Ii of 1899). the State Government hereby delegates to the inspector General of Registration and the Superintendent of Stamps, Madhya Pradeeh, the ’powers conferred on the Chief Controiling Revenue Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 56 and sub-section (2) of section 7O of the said Act. After deiegation of powers exercisable by the Chief Controiting Revenue Authority i.e. Board of Revenue under Section 56 (1) of the Act, 1899 by the State Government upon the Inspector Generai of Registration and Superintendent of Stamps, jurisdiction vested upon the Board of Revenue in terms of Section 7 of the Code has been ceased and the Board of Revenue is preciuded from exercising the jurisdiction under Section 56(1) and 56(4) of the Act, 1899 as the Chief Controiling Revenue Authority. After the aforesaid notmcation, the Board of Revenue was not competent to entertain the revision against the order passed by the Coliector of Stamps under section 50 of the Code and under Section 55 of the Act, 1899, therefore, the order impugned dated 16.8.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision Case No.R.N./14lR-B- 105/24Q/2009 was without jurisdiction and was of nuiitty. Such order is not sustainable under the law. . Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order tmpugned dated 16.8.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision Case No.R.N./14JR-B-105/249/2009 is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that parties aggrieved are at liberty to approach the authority whom power under Section 56 (t) of the Act, 1899 has been delegated by the State Government under‘Section 76-A (a) & (b) of the Act, 1899 i.e. the inspector General of Registration and the Superintendent of Stamps. No ‘ i Sd/. T.P. Shanna f. Judge ,r/ order as to costs. .