K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the District Stamp Officer, Meerut dated 16-4-1975 and the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U. P. Allahabad dated 29-4-1977.
(2.) THE petitioner had executed a gift-deed on 15-10-1971 and valued the gifted property at Rs. 11,000/-. On the audit report, the value of the gifted property was estimated at Rs. 1,58,000/- and odd. THEreafter, enquiry proceedings ensued to ascertain the correct value of the land. THE respondent no. 2, District Stamp Officer, in his order dated 16-4-1975 (contained in annexure '6') fixed the value of the gifted property at Rs. 1,58,000/- and directed the realization of stamp duty and penalty accordingly. Against the order of the District Stamp Officer, the petitioner preferred a revision-petition to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, which reduced the valuation by Rs. 48,000/- and valued the gifted property at Rs. 1,10,000/- and directed the realization of stamp duty, as is evident from the certified copy of its order attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and that of the District Stamp Officer, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the District Stamp Officer has patently erred in passing the order dated 16-4-1975 without hearing the petitioner and affording him reasonable opportunity. It has been emphasized that the District Stamp Officer has written a cryptic order without referring to the relevant evidence on record hence his order suffers from patent error of law and deserves to be quashed. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the revisional authority has arbitrarily fixed the valuation on an ad hoc basis. It has also failed to consider the relevant evidence led by the petitioner in support of his valuation of the gifted property. The learned counsel for the stamp authorities tried to support the impugned orders. According to him, the valuation of the gifted property fixed by the stamp authorities is correct in the circumstances of the present case.
(3.) DURING the course of arguments, I have entertained a doubt as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be entertained against the impugned orders in the circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the ruling Subramaniam Chettiar v. Revenue Divisional Officer Devakottah, AIR 1956 Madras 454 and has emphasized the following observations vide paragraph 11: "..................We are of opinion that these petitions for issuing writs of certiorari would, in the circumstances, lie. It has never been doubted that this Court as the inheritor of the jurisdiction possessed by the original Supreme Court, has power to quash the order of an inferior tribunal, quasi judicial or administrative, if that order was passed either without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or if there is an apparent error in the order. This power of entertaining a writ petition for certiorari existed long before the Constitution, and has been enormously increased under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India relating to Fundamental Rights. It is clear that this Court can exercise, at the instance of an aggrieved party, irrespective of any fundamental right being involved in the matter such a power of issuing a writ of certiorari in suitable cases. Normally it will not issue a writ where there is an alternative remedy. But it is well settled now, by decisions of the Supreme Court, and the High Court, that there is no absolute bar to entertaining writ petitions, and issuing a writ, even when there are alternative remedies, when these alternative remedies are, in the opinion of the Court, not effective, speedy, adequate or sufficient, and the facts of each case have to be considered before deciding whether the alternative remedies are speedy, effective, sufficient or adequate." Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act reads as below; "Statement of case by Cheif Controlling Revenue Authority to High Court-(1) Cheif Controlling Revenue Authority may state any case, referred to it under Sec. 56, sub-section (2), or otherwise coming to its notice, and refer such case, with its own opinion thereon- (a) ........................... (b) ........................... (c) ........................ (d) ........................... (e)........................... (ee) ........................... (2) Every such case shall be decided by not less than three Judges of the High Court, to which it is referred, and in case of difference, the opinion of the majority shall prevail." ;