IMPORTANT POINT
An order based solely on an unauthorized officer's report lacks jurisdiction and must adhere to statutory procedures for validity.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Stamp Case No. 695 of 2023 in re: State v. Sammukh Land Developers and another under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1899), a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition.

4. A preliminary objection has been taken by Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioners have a statutory remedy of filing of an appeal under the provisions of Section 56(1A) of the Act, 1899, as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

5. Responding to that Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the order impugned is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Act, 1899 as well as the rules namely the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1997) on various grounds and as such, the remedy of appeal will not be an absolute bar in this Court entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. In this regard, the first ground that has been urged by Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners as stands recorded in the orders dated 19.1.2024 and 25.1.2024, as passed by this Court, are that in terms of the Rules 1997 and Section 47-A(3) of the Act, 1899 the Sub-Registrar is not competent for sending the reference after registration of the document (in this case the sale-deed) in as much as the authority who can make reference has duly been set forth in Section 47-A(3) of the Act, 1899 which provides that the Collector may suo motu on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamp, or from Additional Commissioner of Stamp or from a Deputy Commissioner of Stamp or from Assistant Commissioner of Stamp or any officer authorized by the State Government in that behalf may call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself regarding the correctness of market value of the property and if he has reason to believe that the market value has not been properly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value.

7. Placing reliance on Rule 2(f) of the Rules 1997, the argument of Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the said rule specifically defines the referring officer as meaning the Court or any of the following namely the Commissioner of Stamp, Additional Commissioner of Stamp, Deputy Commissioner of Stamp, Assistant Commissioner of Stamp or any officer authorized by the Board of Revenue under Section 47-A of the Act 1899.

8. The argument is that a perusal of the order impugned dated 21.12.2023 would indicate that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 have been initiated on the basis of a reference made on the basis of the report submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Akbarpur and he not being an authority/an officer indicated either in Section 47A(3) of the Act, 1899 or Rule 2(f) of the Rules 1997 consequently any decision that has been taken by the competent authority on the basis of the said reference would be void ab initio and hence statutory remedy of appeal as provided under the provisions of the Act, 1899 would not be an absolute bare in the instant petition being entertained by this Court.

9. Responding to that Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel argues on the basis of instructions that admittedly a report was submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Akbarpur on 27.4.2023 which was a confidential report, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the petition. He further states that a perusal of the endorsement made on the said report as