Collector (Stamp) has no authority to file revision.

The above Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred respectively as against the judgement and decree dated 21.7.1992 made in CMA.Nos.68 of 1991, 66 of 1991, and 67 of 1991 by the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, (Appellate Authority), Cuddalore preferred against the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamp papers) Cuddalore.

2. Heard Mr.M.C.Swami, Special Government Pleader appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr.R.Saseedharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in all the revision petitions. With the consent of counsel on either side, the revision petitions are taken up for final disposal.

3. The appeals were disposed of by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore as early as 21.7.1992. The Revisions were presented during the year 1993 with a delay. After condonation of the delay the revisions were numbered and posted for admission. At that stage, the counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the respondents made their submissions as any delay in the disposal of the revision petitions will affect the parties and the delay may even defeat the rights and justice.

4. The petitioners and the respondents in all the three revisions are one and the same and the contentions advanced are one and the same and therefore these revision petitions are disposed of by a common order.

5. The respondent M/s.Chemical and Plastics (India) Ltd., preferred the appeals under sub section (4) of Section 47.A to set aside the proceedings of the Deputy Collector, (Stamps), Cuddalore, in his office proceedings in C.Pa.No.A.8/22/91, dated 31.10.1991 before the Appellate Authority, namely the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore by a common judgment and decree dated 21.7.1992 made in CMA.Nos.66, 67 and 68 of 1991 set aside the proceedings of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) Cuddalore in all the three cases and also held that the stamp duty payable has been already paid by the vendee and there is no deficit at all in the stamp duty.

6. The respondent herein purchased considerable extent of land from different owners under seventeen different sale deeds. The respondent Company paid the Stamp Duty payable on the 17 deeds of conveyances as per the guideline value. All the conveyances dated 17.8.1992 were presented. Concedingly, the respondent paid the stamp duty on the market value, viz., at the rate of Rs.3 per sq.ft., Even according to the Registering Authority the stamp duty paid on the instrument is as per the guideline value. The documents were presented for registration. The Registering Authority completed the registration and released the deeds of conveyance to the purchasers. However the Registering Authority took the view that the properties purchased are sought to be used for industrial purpose, that it is a potential house site and therefore it has to be valued accordingly.

7. The court below, which is the appellate authority, framed the following two points for consideration in all the appeals :-

"i) Whether the deed of conveyance have been valued according to law and whether correct stamp duty has been paid on the instruments of conveyance ?

ii) Whether the appeals are liable to be allowed ?"

8. Both the points were answered in favour of the respondent/purchaser. Hence, the present revision petitions have been preferred by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore.

9. In these revision petitions, the following points arise for consideration :-

"i) Whether the revision petitions are maintainable at the instance of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore ?

ii) Whether the fair order passed by the appellate authority (Subordinate Judge) is vitiated by illegalities or in excess of jurisdiction and liable to be set aside ?

iii) Whether the proceedings initiated by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) under the Prevention of Stamp Undervaluation Rules falls within the jurisdiction of the said authority ?

iv) Whet