IMPORTANT POINT
A quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own orders unless expressly authorized by statute; the absence of such power renders any review attempt invalid.

JUDGMENT :

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) :

1. In the instant writ petition the order dated February 3, 2023 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Jaunpur has been assailed on the ground that the Collector (Stamp) lacks the power to recall or review an order by him under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

FACTS

2. The facts of the instant case have been delineated below: -

(a) The petitioners purchased an agricultural land measuring 0.216 hectare (Gata No.176 ‘Aa’) situated in Mauza Jagdishpur (Ramnagar Bhadsara), Pargana Haveli, Tahsil Sadar, District Jaunpur, from one Sandeep Kumar, the bhumidhar of the land, on July 23, 2020 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Circle Rate). Rs.1,25,280/- were paid towards the registration fee. The sale deed was registered on the same day by the Sub Registrar.

(b) The Sub Registrar submitted a confidential report dated September 14, 2020 to the Assistant Inspector General (Registration), Jaunpur. In the said report, a deficiency of Rs.4,45,790/- in stamp duty and Rs.63,690/- of registration fee was pointed out.

(c) A stamp case was registered and notice was issued to the petitioners. They appeared before the Collector (Stamp) and agreed to deposit the amount to avoid the imposition of penalty.

(d) The Collector (Stamp) heard the case, considered the material available on record and after adjudicating the market value of the land, boundary wall and existing trees, it held that there was a deficiency of Rs.4,45,790/- in stamp duty and Rs.63,690/- in registration fee. The Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- vide order dated December 9, 2020. The petitioners deposited the entire amount on December 18, 2020.

(e) One Shiv Prasad, son of Chauthi Singh, filed a complaint on December 23, 2020 seeking recall of the order dated December 9, 2020. Acting on the complaint of the said private person, another notice dated December 31, 2020 was issued by the Collector (Stamp) to the petitioners.

(f) The petitioners filed an objection against the aforesaid second notice on the ground that the order dated December 9, 2020 was a final order which was passed after consideration of the evidence on record and it is not an ex-parte order. The petitioners assailed the legality of the second notice issued to them.

(g) Thereafter, the Collector passed a fresh order on February 3, 2023 which is now under challenge in the instant writ petition.

SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS

3. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners submits that there is no power conferred on the Collector(Stamp) to recall an order passed under Section 47-A of the Act and subsequently reassess/review his earlier order. The petitioners have relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Milap Chandra Jain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 1988 All. L.J. 1078 and another judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2016(6) AWC 6522.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

4. Counsel on behalf of the respondents submits that based on the complaint filed by one Shiv Prasad, inquiry has been started against the Sub Registrar wherein a show cause notice was issued to the Sub Registrar to explain the allegations made by the complainant with regards to the forgery of certain documents. He further submits that this inquiry is still underway. An explanation was provided by the Sub Registrar in response to the show cause notice. However, counsel on behalf of the respondents failed to explain to this Court or bring forward any material to indicate as to what steps have been taken subsequent to the receipt of the explanation of the Sub Registrar.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

5. Upon a perusal of the documents and after hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, one has to first examine whether the Collector (Stamp) who acts as a quasi-judicial authority possesses any power, i