Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :P.N.BHAGWATI, J.M.SHELAT
PIRBHAI JANUBHAI SHAIKH - Appellant
Versus
B.R.MANEPATIL,collector OF AHMEDABAD - Respondent
S.C.A. 889 of 1962
Decided On : 12/10/1964
Bombay Stamp Act 1958 – Sec. 6 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 53 54 55 – Indian Stamp Act 1899 – Sec. 56 – Quasi Judicial Function – S.C.A. – This petition challenges a determination made by the Collector under sec. 31 ad the decision of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sec. 53 (2) of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 – The first ground was that the determination of the Collector was vitiated inasmuch as it was not supported by any reasons – The second ground urged by the petitioners was that the determination of the Collector as also the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority disclosed an error of law apparent on the face of the record and that error of law lay in the construction of the draft indenture of lease – The third and last ground urged by on behalf of the petitioners was that the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was bad inasmuch as it was given without hearing the third petitioner or without even giving any notice to the third petitioner so that the third petitioner could urge whatever she wanted to say in regard to the question referred to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for its decision and if the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was vitiated the determination of the Collector which was given in was vitiated with the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was also vitiated and was liable to be set aside – Held, Now the premise on which this attack was founded was that the determination of the Collector as also the decision of the Chief Controlling Authority were quasi judicial decisions but Court we shall presently point out this premise is incorrect and the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner must therefore fall to the ground along with the premise – But apart from this answer to the argument there is another answer and it is that neither principle nor authority requires that a quasi judicial body giving its decision must give reason in support of the decision – Court cannot therefore be called upon to consider the question whether the determination of the Collector and the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority disclosed an error of law apparent on the face of the record unless the petitioners first satisfy us that in giving these decisions the Collector and the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority were acting in a quasi judicial capacity – What Court must therefore consider is whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was exercising quasi judicial functions or purely administrative functions when he gave his decision on the matter referred to him by the Collector and that calls for an examination of the true nature of the functions entrusted to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sec. 53 (2) read with Section 31 – Rule laid down under the second head of the test is therefore clearly not satisfied and the determination of the Collector under sec. 31 as also the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sec. 53 (2) cannot be said to be quasi judicial acts – Court is of the view that the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority as also the determination of the Collector were not quasi judicial acts and the attack levelled on behalf of the petitioners against those decisions must therefore fail at all the three points at which it was leveled – Petition Dismissed
( 1 ) THIS petition challenges a determination made by the Collector under sec. 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 The determination came to be made by the Collector under the following circumstances. The first and second petitioners owned a piece of land admeasuring 55 square yards situate at Lal Darwaja in the City of Ahmedabad. They agreed to grant a lease of the said piece of land to the third petitioner on the terms and conditions contained in a draft indenture of lease which was agreed upon between the parties. The third petitioner brought the draft indenture or lease to the Collector and applied to have the opinion of the Collector as to the duty with which it was chargeable under sec. 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 This application was made on 20th June 1961 and was accompanied by the requisite fee directed by the Collector. On receipt of the application it appears the Collector felt doubt as to the amount of duty with which the draft indenture of lease was chargeable and he accordingly drew up a statement of the case and referred it with his own opinion thereon for the decision of the Inspector General of Registration who is the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sec. 53 (2) of the Act. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by his letter dated 13th October 1961 communicated his decision to the Collector and the decision was that the draft indenture of lease was both a lease and a mortgage and was therefore chargeable with a stamp duty of Rs. 2 720 np. being the higher stamp duty as on a mortgage as provided in sec. 6. The Collector in conformity with this decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority determined the amount of duty chargeable on the draft indenture of lease at Rs. 2 720 np. and addressed a letter dated 14th November 1961 to the third petitioner communicating this decision. This letter was sent to the third petitioner at the address of her advocate but according to the third petitioner it was not received at that address. According to the third petitioner several reminders were sent by her and ultimately on 30th March 1962 the Collector informed the third petitioner by a letter of that date which it appears was delivered to her representative that the draft indenture of lease was both a lease and a mortgage and was therefore chargeable with the stamp duty of Rs. 2 720 np. as a mortgage that being the higher stamp duty as provided in sec. 6. By this letter the Collector directed the third petitioner to credit the sum of Rs. 2 720 np. in the State Bank of India for necessary certification under sec. 32. Now according to the third petitioner on receipt of this letter the third petitioner applied for a certified copy of the adjudication order in order to know the reasons which had prompted the respondent to determine the amount of duty chargeable on the draft indenture of lease in the manner he had done but there was no reply to this application. The third petitioner thereupon made a fresh application for a certified copy of the adjudication order on 7th August 1962. In response to this application the Collector addressed a letter dated 21st August 1962 reiterating what was stated in the letter dated 30th March 1962. Since the Collector determined the amount of duty chargeable on the draft indenture of lease at Rs. 2 720 np on the basis that the draft indenture of lease was both a lease and a mortgage the petitioners filed the present petition challenging the legality of such determination. In the petition as filed the Collector alone was made respondent and the decision of the Collector was challenged on the ground first that no reasons were given for the decision and secondly that the decision disclosed an error of law apparent on the face on the record and a writ of certiorari was claimed for quashing and setting aside the decision. At the date when the petition was filed the petitioner was not aware that the Collector had referred the matter for the decision of the Chief Co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
