Smt. Lalti v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board Of Revenue And Another .

1. A sale deed in respect of a Bhumidhari holding was executed by Smt. Murta, widow of Jai Ram on 31-1-92 in favour of petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 and was registered by the District Registrar, Sultan-pur 31-1-92. The sale consideration mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed was Rs. 40,000/- and the District Registrar had assessed the market value of the land which was the subject matter of the sale-deed to be of an amount of Rs. 44,000/-. Since the District Registrar, Sultanpur had assessed the market value of the land which was sought to be transferred under the sale deed referred to above to be Rs. 44,000/-, the stamp.duty required to be paid was determined taking into consideration the aforesaid market value and was paid before registration.

2. It appears that the Additional District Magistrate, District Stamp Officer, Sultanpur issued a notice dated 24-2-92 to the vendees wherein it was indicated that the stamp duty paid on the sale deed dated 31-1-92 was deficient and required them to show cause within a week and intimating that otherwise proceedings for recovery of the deficient stamp duty along with penalty will be initiated. It further appears that after considering the explanation of the vendees the District Stamp Officer, Sultanpur vide his order dated 2-5-92, held that there was a deficiency of stamp duty to the extent of Rs. 1,24,865/- imposed a penalty of Rupees 75,000/- purporting to act under S. 33 read with S. 47A of the Stamp Act. Thereafter proceedings for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,24,865/- and Rs. 75,000/- totalling Rs. 1,99,865/- were initiated. The petitioners challenged the order dated 2-5-92 by means of a revision under S. 56 of the Indian Stamp Act which was filed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue U.P at Allahabad and was registered as Stamp Revision No. 181/92-93 district Sultanpur. The aforesaid revision was taken up for preliminary hearing on 11-6-92 and was admitted for hearing on merits by the respondent calling for the record of the case as well as a report from respondent No. 2. Although the revision was admitted for hearing on merits as indicated above, on the application moved by the petitioners for stay of the realisation of the amount of deficiency and the penalty to which a reference has been made above, the respondent No. 1 stayed the recovery of the penalty only with the result that the proceedings for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,24,865/- as arrears of land revenue remained unaffected.

3. In the above circumstances, the petitioners filed another application seeking modification of the order dated 11-6-92 and prayed for the stay of the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,24,865/-’ also by which amount the stamp duty in question had been held to be deficient. This application was also rejected by the respondent No. 1 vide the order dated 22-7-92.

4. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 22-7-92 passed by the respondent No. 1 and praying for a suitable direction requiring the respondent No. 1 to decide the revision at an early date and further requiring the respondent No. 2 not to proceed with the recovery of the amount in dispute as arrears of land revenue.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

6. The counsel for the petitioners has urged that the order passed by the respondent No. 2 which was the subject matter of revision under S. 56 of the Indian Stamp Act was an order which had serious civil consequences inasmuch as the amount in question was required to be realised as arrears of land revenue and in these proceedings there was every likelihood of not only the land which had been purchased by the petitioner being sold by public auction but even their other immovable property like residential house etc., were also liable to be sold. These proceedings could further result in arrest and detention of the petitioners under the provi sions of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act. It has been asserted by the petitioners that their condition was not economically sound and they did not have any ready money and were not in a position to deposit a huge amount of Rs. 1,24,865/-, required to be deposited by them towards making good the alleged deficiency in the stamp duty. It has further been asserted that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is fully empowered to re-examine the question of proper stamp duty payable on a document and the fact that the revision had been admitted and was to be heard on merits indicated clearly that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case for interference in the order passed by the respondent No. 2 and it is in this view of the matter that the respondent No. 1 itself had stayed the recovery of the amount of Rs. 75,000/- which was sought to be realised as penalty. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in such circumstances, respondent No. 1 has acted with manifest illegality in allowing the proceedings for recovery of amount of Rs. 1,24,865/- in question as arrears of land revenue to continue inasmuch as in case the said amount was recovered by sale of the properties of the petitioners it would become impossible even for the respondent No. 1 to reverse the process in the event of success of the revision, putting thereby the petitioner to an irreparable loss which could not be compensated in terms of money.

7. The learned Standing Counsel representing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has, however, urged that the grant or refusal of an interim relief in the circumstances of the present case was purely a matter of discretion and while exercising jurisdiction envisaged under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not interfere in such matters which are purely discretionary. It has further been urged that the writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order and, therefore, should not be entertained and deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone.

8. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether in the above circumstances the omission of the respondent No. 1 to prevent the realisation of the amount of deficiency in Court fee as arrears of land revenue stand vitiated on account of any such illegality or irregularity which may justify an interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. The Apex Court in its decision in the case of Mool Chand Yadava v. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur, reported in 1983 UPLBEC 519 has observed as follows:—

“………. But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted.”

10. In the present case, therefore, taking into consideration the serious civil conse quences which were likely to result in the event of the continuance of the proceedings for recovering the amount in question as arrears of land revenue there could be absolutely no justification for not staying the above proceedings in order to prevent the manifest miscarriage of justice which have resulted in the event of the revision being allowed as even after having succeeded in revision, in case in the meantime either the property in dispute had been sold to third persons in a public auction or the petitioners were arrested or detained or their other property sold, it would not have been possible to reverse the process and to undo the wrong done to the petitioners. In such matters judicial discretion has to be exercised in a manner so that the rights of the parties may remain protected during the pendency of the lis. The balance of convenience, therefore, clearly lay in favour of the petitioners and the interest of justice required that the realisation of the amount in dispute as arrears of land revenue ought to have been stayed during the pendency of the revision of course, protecting the interest of the State. I find support for this view from a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ajay Tandon v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Board of Revenue) U.P at Allahabad reported in 1992 UPNP 160.

11. So far as the question of the maintainability of the present writ petition is concerned suffice it to say that even though the impugned order is of an interlocutory nature in the sense that it does not determine the right of the petitioners finally yet it cannot be overlooked that Art. 226 of Constitution of India is couched in widest possible terms and as observed by this Court in its decision in the case of Ram Sewak v. Deputy Director Consolidation, reported in 1982 ALJ 1116, its scope is ever expanding. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has clearly observed that a writ petition against an interlocutory order is maintainable and this Court can interfere if it finds the circumstances to be extraordinary or necessary in the interest of justice.

12. It is a well known rule of practice and procedure that at interlocutory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is not granted. However, the equities have to be kept adjusted during the interregnum.

13. In the totality of the circumstances, ends of justice would be met if the respondent No. 1 is directed to Finally decide the revision of the petitioners pending before it within a period of six months during which period, the further proceedings for the recovery of the amount in dispute will remain stayed provided the petitioner furnishes adequate security other than cash or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the respondent No. 2, for the payment of the amount in dispute in the event of the dismissal of the revision. In the result, the writ petition succeeds in part. The impugned order is quashed. A mandamus is issued requiring the respondent No. 1 to finally decide the petitioner's revision filed under S. 56 of Stamp Act which is pending before it within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it during which period the further proceedings for the recovery of the amount in dispute shall remain stayed provided the petitioners furnish within two weeks, adequate security other than cash or bank guarantee, to the satisfaction of the respondent No. 2 for the payment of the aforesaid amount in the event of the dismissal of their revision referred to above.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.