- (1.) HEARD Dr.L.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 13th of November, 2009, passed by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda, inter alia on the ground of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 56(1 -A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 it is the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority who is empowered to exercise the appellate power, whereas in the present case it is the Revenue Commissioner, who has passed the order, accordingly he submits that the order is without jurisdiction and is unsustainable. He further submits that the power of appeal, provided under Section 56(1 -A) of the Act, cannot be delegated to other authority as under Section 76 -A of the Act it is not provided so.
(2.) IN reply Mr.J.N.Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General disputed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners with the submission that though there is no provision of delegation of power provided under Section 56 (1 -A) of the Act and definitely it has to be exercised by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, but he submits that under the Indian Stamp Act, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has not been defined, whereas under the General Clauses Act under Section 3 (10) it is defined as under: - "(10) "Chief Controlling Revenue Authority" or "Chief Revenue Authority" shall mean - (a) in a State where there is a Board of Revenue, the Board; (b) in a State where there is Revenue Commissioner, that Commissioner; (c ) in Punjab, the Financial Commissioner; and (d) elsewhere, such authority as in relation to matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the Central Government, and in relation to other matters, the State Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint; In the light of the aforesaid provisions he submits that once the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is meant as Board of Revenue as well as Revenue Commissioner, both the Board of Revenue and Revenue Commissioner are fully competent to exercise the power of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. He further submits that under the Circular the power of the Board of Revenue as well as the Revenue Commissioner has been demarcated in the light of the value of the suit/case and since the case in hand according to its pecuniary jurisdiction was cognizable by the Revenue Commissioner, the same was remanded by the Board of Revenue to the Revenue Commissioner, thus the Revenue Commissioner has exercised the power of the Chief Revenue Authority.
(3.) DISPUTING the aforesaid interpretation, as made by the learned Additional Advocate General, Dr.Mishra submitted that where there is the Board of Revenue only the Board shall be meant as Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, in absence of whom only a Revenue Commissioner can exercise the said power. He further submits that the definition of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has been given by the legislation by taking care that this power should be vested with the highest revenue authority of the State either it is the Board of Revenue or the Revenue Commissioner and once being highest authority of revenue the Board of Revenue is available in the State, the said power is not available to be exercised by the Revenue Commissioner.;