[Indian Stamp Act] Collector Quasi-Judicial Authority, Has No Statutory Power To Review/Recall Order: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 are quasi-judicial in nature and unless statute specifically provides, the Collector (Stamp) has no power to review or recall his order.

The Court held that no statutory power to review/ recall its order has been given to the Collector (Stamp) under the Indian Stamp Act.

“Collector (Stamp) cannot recall and/or review his own order as no such power has been conferred under Section 47-A of the Act. A quasi-judicial authority is limited in its functionality in as much as it has to act within the four corners of the statute from which it derives its authority. If the statute does not provide for a particular act, the same cannot be undertaken by that authority. Any such action taken de hors the legislative intent would amount to an overreach and beyond the power of the said authority,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.

Factual Background

Petitioners purchased an agricultural land measuring 0.216 hectare situated in District Jaunpur, from one Sandeep Kumar, the bhumidhar of the land, on July 23, 2020 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Circle Rate) and registration fees of Rs.1,25,280/-.

In the confidential report of the Sub-Registrar a deficiency of Rs.4,45,790/- in stamp duty and Rs.63,690/- of registration fee was pointed out. Based on this report, a stamp case was registered against the petitioners. Petitioners deposited the amount to avoid penalty. Order holding the aforesaid deficiency in stamp duty and registration fees was passed along with imposition Rs. 25,000 as penalty. Subsequently, petitioners deposited the entire amount.

One Shiv Prasad, son of Chauthi Singh, filed for recall of the order of the Collector. Subsequently, another notice was issued to the petitioners by Collector (Stamp). Petitioners objected to the said notice on grounds that the order under challenge was no ex-parte and was passed after considering records. However, rejecting the objections a second order was passed by the Collector.

Counsel for petitioner challenged the second order on grounds that the Collector (Stamp) has no power to review or recall his order under Section 47A of the Stamp Act.

High Court Verdict

In Milap Chandra Jain vs. State of U.P. and others, the Allahabad High Court had held that the proceedings before the Collector (Stamp) are quasi-judicial in nature and in absence of statutory provision empowering the Collector to review/ recall his order, the same could not be done. The Court had also held that merely because someone comes up with a better valuation of the property, the proceedings under Stamp Act cannot be initiated “as someone or the other could always be trusted to come forward with a higher offer, the prices of the real properties spiraling the way they have been these days.”

Further, in Sunil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, the Allahabad High Court had held that orders passed by quasi judicial authorities exercising such powers cannot be reviewed or recalled unless power to do so has been conferred by a Statute.

Justice Saraf held that Supreme Court and High Court being Constitutional Courts derive authority from the Constitution of India and must adjudicate within its confines, whereas quasi-judicial bodies derive their power to adjudicate from specific legislations under which they have been established.

The Court held that quasi-judicial bodies lack inherent powers which are granted to the Supreme Court and High Court in the Constitution. Accordingly, they must remain in confines of the powers granted to them by the statute and cannot arbitrarily recall/ review orders.

“Any attempt by quasi-judicial authorities to exercise the power of review or recall outside the bounds of statutory authorization is inherently flawed and constitutes a usurpation of judicial authority. Such exercises of power are void ab initio, meaning they are null and void from the outset, and cannot be sustained in law.”

The Court held that legislative intent was to grant limited powers of review to quasi-judicial authorities for effective administration of justice.

“However, any expansion of review powers beyond what is expressly provided by statute undermines the principles of legislative supremacy and judicial independence. Given the absence of inherent powers and the statutory limitations on review, quasi-judicial authorities must exercise prudence and restraint in revisiting their earlier decisions.”

Quashing the recall order passed by the Collector (Stamp), the Court observed that proceedings had been initiated against the Sub-Registrar for allegedly submitting forged and fabricate report. Since, nothing was said to be done in these proceedings after 2021, the Court directed the State Government to ensure that proper inquiry is carried out within 6months.

“In the realm of legal proceedings, transparency, accountability, and the pursuit of justice are paramount. The allegations made against the Sub Registrar strike at the core of the trust and integrity expected of public officials entrusted with important responsibilities. It is incumbent upon the State Government to diligently investigate these allegations and take appropriate actions to address any wrongdoing.”

Case Title: Smt. Shivani Chaurasia And Another vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 329 [WRIT – C No. 13775 OF 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 329

Click Here To Read/Download Order