http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

TRIDESHWAR DAYAL AND ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

MAHESHWAR DAYAL AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/12/1989

BENCH:

SHARMA, L.M. (J)

BENCH:

SHARMA, L.M. (J)

RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II

CITATION:

1990 AIR 485 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 529

1990 SCC (1) 357 1989 SCALE (2)1436

ACT:

Indian Stamp Act, 1899: Sections 33, 56 and 47-A (U.P.

State Amendment)--Arbitration award--Insufficiently

stamped--Impounding-Limitation for--Chief Controlling Reve-

nue Authority--Whether competent to interfere with the order

of Collector.

HEADNOTE:

A dispute between the appellants and respondent No. 1

was referred to an arbitrator who made an award and filed it

before the civil court. On objection by the appellants, the

prayer for making the award a rule of the court was reject-

ed. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the same. This Court

refused special leave and a petition for review was also

dismissed.

Meanwhile, respondent No. 1 applied to the Collector for

summoning the award and for realising the escaped duty and

penalty. The application was allowed. The appellants moved

the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 56 of

the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the authority set aside the

Collector’s order. The respondents challenged the said order

in a writ petition before the High Court which allowed the

same and remanded the case to the Collector for deciding it

afresh.

Aggrieved, the appellants filed this appeal by special

leave, contending inter alia, that; (a) Respondent No. 1 had

no locus standi to move the Collector for impounding the

award: (b) the Collector had no authority to pass the im-

pugned order after a decade; and (c) the Collector did not

have the power to enquire into the correct valuation of the

property which was subject matter of the award.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court,

HELD: 1.1 It is well settled that if a court acts with-

out jurisdiction, its decision can be challenged in the same

way as it would have been challenged if it had acted with

jurisdiction, i.e. an appeal would lie to the court to which

it would lie if its order was with jurisdiction. [532A]

530

1.2 There is no question of limitation arising and it

cannot be said that what had to be done promptly in 1976

could not be done later. The orders of the Collector dated

15.7.1983 and 22.7.1983 were passed as the follow-up steps

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

in pursuance of the civil court’s direction dated 18.3.76

and no valid objection can be taken against them. The Col-

lector, therefore, shall have to proceed further for reali-

sation of the escaped duty. [532G]

1.3 The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had full

power to interfere with the Collector’s order, provided it

was found to be erroneous. But this Court does not find any

defect in the Collector directing taking of steps for reali-

sation of the stamp duty. [532B]

Janardan Reddy and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad and Ors.,

[1951] SCR 344, relied on.

2. The instant case comes from Uttar Pradesh where

express provisions have been made by the insertion of Sec-

tion 47-A, authorising the Collector to examine the correct-

ness of the valuation. Hence the Collector had the power to

enquire into the valuation of the property which was the

subject matter of the award. [533A-B]

Himalaya House Co. Ltd., Bombay v. Chief Controlling

Revenue Authority, [1972] 3 SCR 332, referred to.

3. It is clarified that on the strength of the present

judgment it will not be open to the respondent to urge that

the effect of the High Court decision dated 8.7.1981 and the

order of this Court dismissing the special leave petition

therefrom and later the review application have disappeared

or have got modified. [533D-E]

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5055 of

1989.