Case: THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION Vs. K. BASKARAN

performed by authorised officers. The complexity of modern day administration and the expansion of functions of the State to the economic and social spheres have made it necessary that the legislature gives wide powers to various authorities when the situation requires it. Todays governmental functions are a lot more complex and the need for delegation of powers has become more compelling. It cannot be expected that the head of the administrative body performs each and every task himself. … … … 7. Practical necessities or exigencies of administration require that the decision-making authority who has been conferred with statutory power, be able to delegate tasks when the situation so requires. Thus, the maxim delegatus non potest delegare, gives way in the performance of administrative or ministerial tasks by subordinate authorities in furtherance of the exercise of the delegated power by an authority. 14. The following principles can thus be culled out from the decisions of this Court: (i) A statutory functionary exercising a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a responsible and competent official to enquire and report, as that is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power; (ii) If a statutory authority empowers a delegate to undertake preparatory work, and to take an initial decision in matters entrusted to it, but retains in its own hands the power to approve or disapprove the decision after it has been taken, the decision will be held to have been validly made if the degree of control maintained by the authority is close enough for the decision to be regarded as the authoritys own; (iii) Even in cases of sub-delegation, so long as the essential function of decision making is performed by the delegate, the burden of performing the ancillary and clerical task need not be shouldered by the primary delegate and it is not necessary that the primary delegate himself should perform the ministerial acts as well; and (iv) Practical necessities or exigencies of administration require that the decision-making authority who has been conferred with statutory power, be able to delegate tasks when the situation so requires. 15. Rule 11A of the Rules empowers the appellate authority to call for any information or record from any public office, officer or authority or to examine and record statements from any member of the public office or authority. In line with the principles laid down by this Court, it can therefore be said that in exercise of such power, if the appellate authority calls for any information or calls for any record or any inputs, that by itself, will not amount to delegation of essential functions. If, in terms of such power, the appellate authority deputes a responsible official to enquire into certain facets and calls for a report, that would be an ordinary mode of exercise of the power vested in the appellate authority. Practical necessities and exigencies of administration demand that the appellate authority must be able to delegate certain tasks such as collecting information after causing inspection. So long as the essential function, that is to say of considering all the necessary factors and inputs and thereafter arriving at an informed decision is done by the appellate authority, the burden of performing ancillary tasks need not be shouldered by the appellate authority. 16. The submission based on Section 76-A of the Act is completely misplaced and does not deserve acceptance. Section 76-A is quoted hereunder for facility: 76-A. Delegation of certain powers- The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette delegate- (a) all or any of the powers conferred on it by sections 2(9), 33(3)(b), 70(1), 74 and 78 to the Chief Controlling 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 such subordinate Revenue Authority as may be specified in the notification. Section 76-A was inserted in the Principal Act vide the Decentralization Act, 1914 (Act No. IV of 1914). The legislative head in Entry 44, namely Stamp duties other than duties on or fees collected by means of judicial stamps, but not including rates of stamps is in the Concurrent List of Schedule VII to the Constitution. Section 47-A was inserted in the Principal Act by the State Legislature by enacting the Tamil Nadu Act No.24 of 1967 which received the assent of the President on 29 th March, 1968. The Rules including Rule 11-A were framed to effectuate the letter and spirit of Section 47-A. Section 76-A of the Principal Act enables the State Government to delegate some of the statutory powers conferred upon it by the Principal Act to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Such empowerment has nothing to do with the legislative power exercised by the State in terms of which Section 47-A was inserted, or with the Rules promulgated to effectuate Section 47-A. For interpreting and considering the context of said Section 47-A or the Rules, the fact that certain other statutory powers in favour of the State Government are delegable, has absolutely no relation. Section 47-A was inserted by the State in its legislative power and the Rules framed thereunder have to be considered on their own and without being influenced by Section 76-A. 17. Therefore, in observing that the inspection ought to have been carried out by the Inspector General of Registration himself, and such function could not have been delegated, the High Court failed to appreciate the principles laid down by this Court. Any report that was called for was essentially in the nature of rendering assistance to the appellate authority in discharge of its functions. The final order passed by the appellate authority, after considering all the necessary material, must be taken to be one rendered by the appellate authority on its own, and there was no delegation of any essential functions vitiating exercise of power. We do not, therefore, find any impropriety or invalidity touching upon the exercise of power by the appellate authority.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The order of the appellate authority does not disclose any ground of such violation being raised. We, therefore, find that there was no violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 6. Similar situation obtains in appeals arising of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.17103 of 2019 and 31633-31637 of 2018.14. The following principles can thus be culled out from the decisions of this Court: (i) A statutory functionary exercising a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a responsible and competent official to enquire and report, as that is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power; (ii) If a statutory authority empowers a delegate to undertake preparatory work, and to take an initial decision in matters entrusted to it, but retains in its own hands the power to approve or disapprove the decision after it has been taken, the decision will be held to have been validly made if the degree of control maintained by the authority is close enough for the decision to be regarded as the authoritys own; (iii) Even in cases of sub-delegation, so long as the essential function of decision making is performed by the delegate, the burden of performing the ancillary and clerical task need not be shouldered by the primary delegate and it is not necessary that the primary delegate himself should perform the ministerial acts as well; and (iv) Practical necessities or exigencies of administration require that the decision-making authority who has been conferred with statutory power, be able to delegate tasks when the situation so requires15. Rule 11A of the Rules empowers the appellate authority to call for any information or record from any public office, officer or authority or to examine and record statements from any member of the public office or authority. In line with the principles laid down by this Court, it can therefore be said that in exercise of such power, if the appellate authority calls for any information or calls for any record or any inputs, that by itself, will not amount to delegation of essential functions. If, in terms of such power, the appellate authority deputes a responsible official to enquire into certain facets and calls for a report, that would be an ordinary mode of exercise of the power vested in the appellate authority. Practical necessities and exigencies of administration demand that the appellate authority must be able to delegate certain tasks such as collecting information after causing inspection. So long as the essential function, that is to say of considering all the necessary factors and inputs and thereafter arriving at an informed decision is done by the appellate authority, the burden of performing ancillary tasks need not be shouldered by the appellate authority16. The submission based on Section 76-A of the Act is completely misplaced and does not deserve acceptance.17. Therefore, in observing that the inspection ought to have been carried out by the Inspector General of Registration himself, and such function could not have been delegated, the High Court failed to appreciate the principles laid down by this Court. Any report that was called for was essentially in the nature of rendering assistance to the appellate authority in discharge of its functions. The final order passed by the appellate authority, after considering all the necessary material, must be taken to be one rendered by the appellate authority on its own, and there was no delegation of any essential functions vitiating exercise of power. We do not, therefore, find any impropriety or invalidity touching upon the exercise of power by the appellate authority. We, thus, accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Appellants, and set aside the view taken by the High Court in that behalf.18. The ground with respect to delegation of power under Rule 11-A was taken in all these matters, on the basis of which the High Court set aside the determination made by the appellate authority.19. We now turn to question no. 2, in respect of which the High Court in six of these appeals, had concluded that the stipulation of period of three months in Rule 7 being mandatory, the orders passed after the expiry of said period would be invalid.20. Under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act, if there is reason to believe that the market value has not been truly set forth in the Instrument tendered for registration, a reference can be made to the Collector, who (i) after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard; and (ii) after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by Rules, has to determine the correct value of the concerned property. The Section by itself does not lay down any period within which the entire process is to be completed by the Collector. It simply states that the enquiry be held in such manner as may be prescribed by Rules. In this backdrop the manner in which the enquiry must be held as set out in the Rules, is required to be considered.21. The expression within three months from the date of first notice is crucial. Is the description first notice referable to notice in Form I issued in terms of Rule 4(1)? The answer would obviously be in the negative. Form I notice itself must give twenty-one days to the concerned persons to respond. Depending upon their response, their statements would be recorded and/or certain information may be required to be called for, whereafter the Order in Form II is to be issued provisionally determining the market value. The concerned persons are entitled to raise objections in writing and must be afforded hearing. After fulfilling these requirements, the order in terms of Rule 7 can be passed. All these stages may not be completed in three months.Further, the reference in Rule 7 is to the first notice and not to notice in Form I. Considering the context and various stages preceding the stage of passing of the Order under Rule 7, the reference has to be to the first notice in Form II. There could possibly be more than one notices in Form II, specially when the hearing is to take place on an adjourned date and that is why the period must be reckoned from the first notice in Form II. The expression immediately following first notice in Rule 7 is determining the market value of the properties…. That is also indicative that the reference to the notice is one in Form II in the immediately preceding Rule 6.25. As noted above, Section 47-A by itself does not prescribe any timeline. If the stipulation or fixation of period of three months from the first notice in terms of Rule 6 or from notice in Form II is taken to be mandatory it would lead to a situation of incongruity. The fact that Form II notice had been issued, would mean that on a prima facie view of the record and material, the value stated in the instrument was not the correct value; which in turn would mean that prima facie the Government Coffers were being denied the rightful dues. If for any reason the proceedings are not completed within three months and, therefore, must be held to be vitiated, the public interest would suffer, and the persons who were prime facie responsible for suppressing the real value, would stand to gain. The amendment of Rule 7 incorporating the period of three months was essentially to guide the public officials to complete the process as early as possible but was not intended to create a right in favour of those who had prime facie conducted themselves prejudicing public interest.In keeping with the principles laid down in State of Mysore and others v. V .K. Kangan and others (1976) 2 SCC 895 , if the subject matter of the provision as well as the inter-relation of the period of three months to the general object of the provision are considered, the fixation of period has to be taken to be directory. Otherwise, the very object of sub-serving public interest and securing public revenue would get defeated. Pertinently, the concerned provision has not spelt out any consequence for non-adherence to said period of three months.27. We now turn to question No.3, which incidentally arises only in one appeal viz. one arising from SLP(C) Nos.31633-31637 of 2018.The limitation in sub-section (8) of Section 47-A, was high-lighted in paragraphs 33 to 36 of the judgment of the High Court in Rajendran v. The Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu and others (supra). In the present case, adequate notice was issued to the concerned persons and, therefore, there was no infirmity on that count. It is nobodys case that as on the date when the proceedings were initiated in exercise of the power under sub-section (6) of Section 47-A, the period for preferring the appeal had not expired, or that more than five years had expired after the passing of the order under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3). In the circumstances, none of the limitations which the statute has imposed upon the exercise of power were present31. The observations of the High Court in the instant case indicate that while dealing with an appeal preferred by the registrant against an order passed under Section 47-A(2), no suo motu exercise of power could be initiated. It is the correctness of that view which is now in issue.33. The essence of revisional jurisdiction is thus accepted to be in the duty of the superior tribunal or officer to ensure that the subordinate tribunal or officers remain within the bounds prescribed by law and discharge their functions in accordance with law.35. For exercising revisional power suo motu or on its motion, the concerned authority must be satisfied that an order has been passed by the authority or officer subordinate to it. which may be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. As indicated in some of the hypothetical instances noted in the decisions quoted hereinabove, the error may have crept in unknowingly, or there may be a genuine mistake, or in some cases there could be a deliberate attempt to prejudice the interest of revenue. If an infirmity or illegality is brought to the notice or knowledge of the revisional authority, through normal and regular process of reporting by the subordinate officer or authority, the power of revision can certainly be exercised. The requisite knowledge enabling the revisional authority to exercise the power vested in it, can also be gathered from the appeal preferred by the registrant himself. That may only be an occasion or a source which enables the authority to gather information about the possible infirmity or illegality in the process. Upon being so aware, the revisional authority would thereafter be exercising power vested in it. Qualitatively, it makes no difference as to what was the source of the information or knowledge, so long as the power is exercised within the confines of the limitations or restrictions imposed by the statute, and is in accordance with law. Apart from the restrictions imposed by the statute, none can be read into the exercise of power on the ground as to the nature or source of information.While entertaining an appeal, if an obvious illegality is noticed by the revisional authority, it can certainly exercise suo motu power to undo the mistake, or rectify an error committed by the subordinate officer or authority, subject to such restrictions as are imposed on the exercise of the power by the statute36. There is nothing in the scheme of the Act which purports to restrict the exercise of suo motu power under Section 47-A, and confines it to cases where knowledge of any illegality or infirmity in the proceedings undertaken by the subordinate officers must be gathered from sources other than through a pending appeal. Unless the statute expressly or even by necessary implication restricts the exercise of power, there would be no occasion to read into the power, any other limitations. The High Court has not found the exercise of power to be invalid on any count, nor was any such submission advanced before the High Court. The High Court had simply gone on the existence of power rather than on the exercise of power. It is not as if the assessment made by the appellate authority was either opposed to principles of natural justice, or was so palpably incorrect, that it could never be sustained. In our view, the High Court completely erred in setting aside the exercise of power undertaken by the concerned authority. The exercise of power was definitely designed to obviate an obvious illegality and prejudice to the interest of the revenue. The exercise was, thus, absolutely correct, and there was no occasion to set aside the orders passed in pursuance thereof. We, therefore, answer question No.3 accordingly.