Decided on January 12,1967



- (1.)THIS is a revision petition against the order of the Collector, Jodhpur, dated 4. 5. 1964, whereby on an application under Sec. 31 of the Stamp Act filed by the petitioner, the Collector ordered that the documents should be deemed as a partition deed and appropriate stamp fee should be affixed.
(2.)THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the document is not a partition deed but a release deed.
A preliminary objection was raised by the Govt. Advocate who sought reliance on the rule laid down by a Full Bench of this Board in the Jaipur Metal & Elec-tricals Ltd. Co. vs. State (1957 RRD 180), wherein under similar circumstance, it was held that the decision of the Collector was not open to revision.

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited M/s. Jaidayal Shanti Kumar Vs. Gajadhar (1956 RLW 261) and has argued that this case was not examined by the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue while hearing the case of the Jaipur Metal & Electricals Ltd. Co. According to him, the Board is competent to interfere with the order of the learned Collector.

I am afraid I have not been able to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Let us first examine the rule laid down by the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of M/s. Jaidayal Shanti Kumar vs. Gajadhar. The question before the High Court was whether the Board had jurisdiction to make a reference to the High Court u/s. 57 of the Stamp Act and the argument was that the Collector having decided the matter, there was nothing pending before him and the Board had no jurisdiction to interfere u/s. 56 and, therefore, could not make a reference u/s. 57. It was held by the High Court that the power of the Board to make a reference under sec. 57 was in very wide terms and it could refer any case to the High Court which came otherwise to its notice. All that was necessary to make a reference competent was that there should be a case pending before any revenue authority in order to enable it under sec. 59 (2) of the Stamp Act to dispose of the case conformably to the judgment of High Court which was to be forwarded to the revenue authority. It was held that sec. 56 (1) gave powers to the Board to interfere with the orders of the Collector passed under Chapters IV and V and under cl. (a) of the First Proviso to sec. 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . subject however to such provisions in the Stamp Act, which declared the powers of the Collector conclusive as for example sec. 40 sub-sec. (2 ). It was observed that the orders of the Collector which were within the ambit of sec. 56 (1) were subject to the right of revision by the Board, if no provisions of the Stamp Act made them conclusive and the Board was competent to make a reference if the matter came to its knowledge otherwise.

I fail to see how this authority can help the petitioner by detracting from the Full Bench rule laid down by the Board in the case of the Jaipur Metal & Electri-cals Ltd. , Co. The order of the Collector sought to be impugned through this revision petition has been made under sec. 31 of the Indian Stamp Act which falls in Chapter III and is not covered by sec. 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act which relates to the powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapters IV and V and under cl. (a) of the First Proviso to sec. 26. So far as sec. 31 is concerned, sub-sec. (2) of sec. 56 enables the Collector to refer a case to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority if he feels any doubt. Sub-sec. (3) provides that such authority can consider the case and decide the matter. It is obvious that while this section provides for a Collector to make a reference to the Board of Revenue if he feels any doubt in respect of an application u/s. 31 it does not provide for any revision to be filed by an aggrieved party after the Collector has exercised his powers under sec. 31.

As is obvious, the ratio in the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner was whether a reference could be made to the High Court under sec. 57 in the circumstances enumerated therein and not whether a revision was competent in a case decided by the Collector under sec. 31. The above authority, therefore, is not applicable to this case which must be governed by the rule laid down in 1957 RRD 180 (F. B. ).

In the result, therefore, this application is found to be incompetent and not maintainable. .

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.