- (1.) DISAGREEING with the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Syed Mahfooj Hussain Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2003 (52) ALR 346, a co-ordinate Bench had referred this matter along with five connected matters to be decided by a larger Bench. Facts of the Case: Since all these writ petitions relate to the same issue, the same have been heard and are being decided by a common order. Writ Petition No. 57850 of 2009 is being treated as the leading petition and its facts are being given.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari declaring the U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001 by which the proviso to clause 1-A was added to section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as ultra vires to the Constitution of India as the condition to deposit 1/3rd amount is also not applicable in filing the revision. The petitioner further prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery certificate for the dues of stamp duty dated 18.0-8.2009 issued by the Tehsildar, Bijnor filed as Annexure 17 to the writ petition which has been issued in pursuance to the order dated 29.06.2009 passed by the Collector (Stamp) filed as Annexure 15 to the writ petition wherein deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 63,84,000/- has been determined and a penalty of Rs. 2,55,36,000/- has been imposed. A writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to press the petitioner for depositing deficiency of stamp duty and the penalty in respect of sale deed dated 29.11.2004 during the pendency of Stamp Revision No. 46/2009-10 filed by the petitioner before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad has also been sought. One Rai Bahadur Sri Ayodhya Prasad was the owner of plot No. 892 situate at Village Rasidpur Garahi, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bijnor. He executed a registered Will on 14.02.1963 in favour of Late Smt. Prakashwati Devi, who inherited the same. She executed a registered Will on 08.05.1985 in favour of Vinod Chandra Gupta and others. The plot No. 892 was leased out to M/s. S.B. Sugar Mills through a lease deed. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) took over M/s. S.B. Sugar Mills sometimes in the year 1971. Since then it is in possession of the said Corporation, which is being used as a cane yard. The lease was determined by notice dated 10.12.1079. A Civil Suit No. 212/1981 was filed by Vinod Chandra Gupta and others against the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited in the Court of Civil Judge/Munsif, Bijnor for possession, for arrears of rent, damages and eviction from 4 Bigha 3 Biswas of land which approximately comes to 10500 square metres. The Trial Court passed a decree on 14.04.1982 in favour of the plaintiffs Vinod Chandra Gupta and others. The suit for damages was decreed but for ejectment it was dismissed. Two appeals were filed, (1) being Civil Appeal No. 360 of 1982 by the Corporation and (2) Civil Appeal No. 297 of 1982 filed by Vinod Chandra Gupta and others. Vide judgment and order dated 01.08.1994, the civil appeal filed by the Corporation was dismissed whereas, the appeal filed by Vinod Chandra Gupta was allowed. The Corporation was directed to handover vacant possession by 01.09.1984. The Corporation filed two Second Appeal bearing Nos. 2436 of 1984 and 2444 of 1984 before this Court. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, Vinod Chandra Gupta and Raghubir Prasad wanted to dispose of the land though it was well in possession of the Corporation. The petitioner purchased the land through a registered sale deed dated 29.11.2004 on a total consideration of Rs. 25,28,400/- A total sum of Rs. 14,16,050/- was paid by the petitioner and the balance was to be paid within six months. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 3,36,000/- calculated according to the prevailing circle rate applicable for the purposes of stamp duty. This Court vide judgment and order dated 20.04.2007 had allowed both the second appeals filed by the Corporation and the decree passed in favour of Vinod Chandra Gupta had been set-aside. Vinod Chandra Gupta had filed a Special Leave to Appeal before the Apex Court being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11106 ­ 11107 of 2007 ­ Vinod Chandra Gupta Versus U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. After registration of the sale deed on 29.11.2004, notice was issued by the Office of the Collector (Stamp), Bijnor to the petitioner whereupon the petitioner filed an application raising objections that the notice is not in accordance with law. The Collector (Stamp) vide order dated 29.09.2006 valued the land at Rs. 6,72,00,000/- and the deficiency of the stamp duty was determined at Rs. 63,84,000/- Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2006, the petitioner preferred a Revision No. 155 of 2006-07 before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad respondent No. 1. The revision was allowed on 19.11.2007, the order of the Collector (Stamp) dated 20.09.2006 was set-aside and the matter was remitted for deciding afresh on merit according to law. Pursuant to the order of remand, the Collector (Stamp) passed an order on 29.06.2009 determining the deficiency of the stamp duty of Rs. 63,84,000/- The said order has been passed ex parte. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision being Stamp Revision No. 46/2009-10 before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad. Along with the revision, the petitioner also filed an application for grant of interim relief. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad vide order dated 29.09.2009 admitted the revision and summoned the record. He did not grant any interim order. As there was no interim order in favour of the petitioner, recovery proceedings have been initiated. Faced with this situation, the petitioner approached this Court on the ground that section 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has not been deleted and, therefore, the power of revision is still in existence and no amount is required to be deposited. The condition of deposit of 1/3rd amount required for filing an appeal can not be insisted upon. Even otherwise, the condition of deposit of 1/3rd amount is arbitrary specially when there is no procedure for waiver.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Statutory Provisions: "56. Control of, and statement of case to, Chief Controlling Revenue-authority - (1) The powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and Chapter V 2[and under clause (a) of the first proviso to section 26] shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority." ;