Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court has been invoked by the petitioners so as to challenge the order dated 12.1.2010 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in Stamp Revision No. 243 of 2008-09 arising from proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as Act) decided on 23.8.2002 by the District Magistrate/Collector, Chandauli.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Joint Stock Company within the meaning of Section 566 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Companies Act) whereas petitioner No. 2 is one of its directors.

3. A partnership firm having seven parters owned a flour mill in the name and style of Kanudia Flour Mills at Dulhaipur, Mughalsarai, Chandauli and other properties. The aforesaid partnership was converted into a Joint Stock Company under Part IX of the Companies Act with the new name Kayess Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. and a certificate of incorporation was duly issued to it on 3.8.98 by the Registrar Companies at Calcutta. Thus, by virtue of Section 575 of the Companies Act all properties belonging to or vested in partnership firm became the properties of the company by operation of law.

4. In view of above vesting, the petitioner company moved an application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, before the Tehsildar on 25.11.1999 for substituting its name in place of the partnership firm in revenue records against certain agricultural plots of land situate in Village Mahmoodpur, Pargana Rasoolpur, Tehsil and District Chandauli. On the receipt of the above application, which was registered as Mutation Case No. 144 of 1999 under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act, the Tehsildar on 6.3.2000 wrote to the A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) that mutation as aforesaid has been sought but no stamp duty appears to have been paid and therefore, it does not appear to be legal to transfer the name, therefore, the original application is being sent for determination of proper stamp duty payable so that further proceedings of mutation may be completed thereafter.

5. On the said report A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) called for a report from the Deputy Registrar who vide report dated 1.3.2002 recommended the market value and the stamp duty payable thereon.

6. Petitioners’ filed objections stating that the proceedings for determination of market value are not maintainable. There is no transfer of any property and the transfer by operation of law would not attract payment of stamp duty.

7. The above objections of the petitioners were not dealt with and therefore, petitioners made repeated applications dated 16.8.2002 and 23.8.2002 for consideration of the objection with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings inasmuch as mutation proceedings were not proceedings with regard to transfer or conveyance of any property.

8. The District Magistrate/Collector Chaundali ultimately on 23.8.2002 passed an order under Section 47-A of the Act holding that the application for mutation is an instrument of conveyance as it transfers the property from partnership to the Joint Stock Company and as such is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 23(a) of Schedule 1-B of the Act. He determined the deficiency to be Rs. 56,29,300/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

9. The above order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Writ Petition No. 39057 of 2002 which was initially entertained and an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 23.8.2002 was passed but finally the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 29.7.2008 on the ground of alternative remedy of a revision under Section 56 of the Act.

10. Consequently, petitioners’ filed Revision No. 243 of 2008-09. The said revision has been decided by the C.C.R.A vide impugned order dated 12.1.2010 without adjudicating the controversy regarding the maintainability of the proceedings and the chargeability of stamp duty on the mutation application, directed the District Magistrate to redetermi