1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenges the order of Collector of Stamps dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P/2) and the order dated 9.4.2012, passed by the Revenue Board, whereby the revision of petitioner against Annexure P/2 is rejected.

2. An agreement of sale was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.4 for purchase of a piece of agriculture land. When the respondent No.4 declined to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Fourth Additional District Judge for specific performance of contract against the respondent No.4. The trial Court impounded the said agreement under section 33 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, the ‘Act’) and forwarded it before the Collector of Stamps, Gwalior to determine the proper stamp duty on the document.

3. The document, Annexure P-1, was submitted before the Collector of Stamps. The said authority passed the impugned order dated 8.8.2011. It was held by the said authority that agreement of sale shows that full consideration was paid by the petitioner and, therefore, it can be presumed that possession was delivered to the petitioner. On the basis of this, he directed for payment of stamp duty as per market value and valued the land as Rs.13,20,000/-. The Board of Revenue affirmed the said finding.

4. Shri S.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the said finding on the ground that no presumption can be drawn regarding taking of possession by the petitioner merely because the full consideration has been paid by the petitioner pursuant to agreement of sale. He submits that the order is bad in law. He criticized the order of Board of Revenue on the same ground. He relied on 1969 JLJ 941 = AIR 1970 MP 74 (Balkrishna Bihari Lal v. Board of Revenue MP and others) and 2011(I) MPWN 129 = 2010 (4) MPHT 69 (DB) (Rachna Khare (Ku.) v. Bachchoo Ram and another).

5. Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned Government Advocate and Shri Pramod Gohadkar, learned counsel for the other side, supported the order. Learned Government Advocate relied on AIR 1984 SC 38 (Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and others) to submit that even a wrong order need not be interfered with.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. This is not in dispute between the parties that as per Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, there are two different entries for the purpose of stamp duty in relation to immoveable property, when possession is delivered and when possession is not given. In the impugned orders, the authorities below opined that when full consideration pursuant to agreement of sale is paid by the petitioner, it can be concluded that possession is delivered to the petitioner. The question is, whether such finding is justifiable?

8. This is settled in law that conclusion arrived at must be based on reasons. The apex Court held that reasons are heartbeats of conclusion. In Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the apex Court emphasized the necessity to assign reasons in following words :-

“(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by ad