ORDER

1. Heard on Document Nos.447/2024 and 448/2024 which have been filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 respectively, raising the preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petition.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Sharamik Janta Sangh through its President, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 21.2.2023 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Khargone, District Khargone whereby, Collector of Stamps has rejected the reference under Section 48B of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1899’) holding that the valuation of the property was carried out by his office only while exercising powers under section 31 of the Act of 1899 and thus, he has no jurisdiction to review his own order dated 28.6.2021 on the allegation of insufficiency of the stamp duty on the sale deeds through which the disputed property has been sold.

3. The application Document Nos.447/2024 and 448/2024 have been filed mainly on two grounds, (i) That the petitioner Shramik Janta Sangh has no locus standi to file the petition, which has no connection with workmen or labourers of the respondent Manjeet Cotton Private Ltd. (ii) The other objection which has been raised is that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an objection under section 56(4) of the Act of 1899.

4. Learned senior counsels appearing for the respondents have submitted that the stamp duty was paid by the respondent after the same was certified by the respondent No.1 by way of adjudicatory proceedings under section 31 of the Act of 1899. Thus, it is submitted that after the adjudication was made, a certificate was also issued under section 32 of the Act of 1899, and based on the certificate, the sale deed has been executed between the parties on the stamps as advised by the Stamp Collector, thus, the question of deficit stamp duty cannot be raised by the petitioner in any proceedings because the sale deed cannot be said to be undervalued.

5. Counsel for the respondents have also drawn the attention of this Court to section 56(4) of the Act of 1899, in which it is provided as under:-

“56. Control of, and statement of case to, Chief Controlling Revenue authority-

(1)xxxxx

(2)xxxxx

(3)xxxxx

(4) The Chief Controlling Revenue authority may, on its own motion or on the application by any party, at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the amount with which the instrument is chargeable with duty, call for and examine the record of any case disposed of by the Collector and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit:

Provided that it shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the party concerned and opportunity given to him for being heard:

Provided further that no application for revision shall be-

(i) Entertained against an order appealable under this Act;

(ii) Entertained unless presented within ninety days from the date of order and in computing the period aforesaid, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the said order shall be excluded.” (Emphasis Supplied)

6. Thus, it is submitted that otherwise also, the petitioner can challenge the aforesaid order before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the petition itself is misconceived.

7. On the other hand, Ms. Medha Patkar, on behalf the petitioner, has vehemently opposed the application and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the petitioner Union is competent to file this petition, being the body of the workmen of the respondent Company, and so far as the objection regarding the alternative remedy is concerned, it is submitted that in the impugned order itself it is clearly observed by the Collector Stamps that it is liable to be changed if it is found that the duty is insufficient.

8. Heard. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record, it is found that so far as the order dated 28.6.2021 is co