ORDER

Per: Sanjeev Sachdeva, Acting Chief Justice

1. Appellants impugn order dated 12.3.2024 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants impugning order dated 6.2.2020 passed by Board of Revenue.

2. Appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 20.7.2015 passed by the Collector of Stamps directing the appellants to pay stamp duty of Rs.1,38,18,480/-. Aggrieved by the order, appellant filed an appeal to the Commissioner under section 47(A)(4) of Indian Stamp Act (as amended by the State of M.P.) (for brevity 'Act'). The Commissioner by order dated 4.10.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.

3. We may note that after 4.10.2017 when the appeal was dismissed, further amendment was carried out in the Indian Stamp Act by the State of M.P. and Section 47(A)(5) of the Act was repealed and a new provision section 40(1)(e) of the Act was incorporated. Section 47(A)(5) of the Act provided for an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenueauthority and section 40(1)(e) of the Act provided for an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority.

4. Instead of filing an appeal, appellants filed a revision under section 56 of the Act on 28.8.2018. Subsequently, appellants filed an application dated 1.10.2019 seeking conversion of the revision into an appeal under section 47(A)(5) of the Act. Said application seeking conversion was dismissed by the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority on 6.2.2020 holding that conversion could not be permitted as section 47(A)(5) of the Act had been abolished. This decision was challenged by the appellants in the subject writ petition.

5. As noticed above, subject writ petition has been dismissed by order dated 12.3.2024. Learned Single Judge held that since provisions of section 47(A)(5) of the Act have been omitted, the conversion was rightly rejected. Learned Single Judge has held that right of appeal is not an inherent right and is a statutory right and right of appeal will have prospective effects unless it is made retrospectively. Learned single Judge has held that the amendments carried out in the Statute on 23.10.2017 would not have a retrospective application and cannot make the order appealable which was not appealable prior thereto.

6. Reference may be made to the provisions of section 47(A)(4)(5) of the Act as it stood prior to its omission by the M.P. Act 30 of 2017 w.e.f. 23.10.2017. Section 47(A)(4) and (5) of the Act reads as under:

"47(A)

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under subsection (2) or sub-section (3) may, in the prescribed manner appeal against such order to the Commissioner who may either himself decide the appeal or transfer it to the Additional Commissioner of the Division.

(5) Any person aggrieved by an order passed in appeal under subsection (4) may in the prescribed manner appeal against such order to the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority, Madhya Pradesh."

7. Section 47(A)(4) of the Act prior to amendment provided that person aggrieved by an order of the Collector may prefer an appeal against such order of the Commissioner. Section 47(A)(5) of the Act provided that any person aggrieved by an order passed in appeal under sub-section (4) may prefer an appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenueauthority, Madhya Pradesh.

8. In terms of section 47(A)(5) of the Act, appellants could have preferred an appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority from the order passed by the Commissioner under section 47(A)(4) of the Act.

9. Section 47(A)(5) of the Act was omitted w.e.f. 23.10.2017 and in its place section 40(1)(d) & (e) was inserted. Section 40(1) (d) & (e) of the Act read as under:

"40(1) xxx xxx xxx

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) xxx xxx xxx

(d) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under sub-section (1) may, in the prescribed manner, appeal against such order to the Officer notified by the State Government in this regard:

Pro