S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner filed a revision under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), respondent No. 2 raising a demand of Rs. 70,000. 00 towards the deficiency in stamp duty and penalty thereon on a re-determination of the corrrectness of the market value of the property which was the subject matter of the sale deed in respect of the vacant land executed in favour of the petitioner which re-determination took place in the proceedings under Section 47a of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable to the State of U. P.

( 2 ) ALONG with the aforesaid revision the petitioner filed an application for interim relief praying that during the pendency of the revision, recovery of the amount in dispute be stayed. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 3-2-1994, while admitting the revision for hearing, granted an interim order of stay whereunder the recovery proceedings for the realisation of the amount of penalty was stayed in full but the respondent No. 1 stayed the recovery of only half of the stamp duty payable under the order impugned in the revision in view of exposition in 1993 R. J. 326 - its own earlier decision.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress, praying for the quashing of the impunged order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the impugned order cannot be sustained not only because it had been passed in an improper exercise of jurisdiction but also because it amounted to a flagrant disregard of the decisions of this Court which had been rendered after having heard the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, respondent No. 1. I which orders had also attained finality. It has further been asserted that in spite of the decision of this Court on the point having been specifically brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 he chose a course of action different than the one which he was bound to take following the decisions of this Court and its ratio which were binding upon it being an authority subordinate to this Court.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent-authorities and have also perused the record. I have also perused the decisions of this Court rendered by two Division Benches in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. NIL of 1992 Bhuvneshwar Prasad v. State of U. P. , Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue U. P. , Allahabad and another decided on 24-11-1992 and Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 7294 Smt. Parwati Parasrampuria v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Allahabad decided on 11-2-1994 and also a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Lalit v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority reported in 1992 RD 468, as well as another decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. NIL of 1994 Sri Mahesh Kumar v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue decided on 5-1-1994 following the decision in the case of Smt. Lalti and requiring the respondent No. 1 to abide by the said judgment in future to avoid unnecessary litigation. The learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents has tried to support the impugned order on the basis of the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U. P. Allahabad in the case of Smt. Champa Devi v. State of U. P. reported in 1993 Revenue judgments p 326 decided on 24-6-1993 referred to in the impugned order.

( 6 ) IT may be noticed that this Court in its decision in the case of Smt. Lalti v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority decided on 31-7-1992 reported in 1992 RD 458 had, while considering the course of action to be adopted while granting interim relief in the matter as involved in the present case, had required the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to finally decide the revision filed under Sect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document