Collector (Stamp) Cannot Recall And/or Review His Own Order As No Such Power Has Been ConferredUnder

The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that the Collector (Stamp) lacks the authority to recall or review his own order under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. This decision was made by Justice Shekhar B. Saraf in response to a petition challenging an order issued by the District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp) in Jaunpur.

 

The petitioners, who had purchased agricultural land in Mauza Jagdishpur, Jaunpur, in July 2020 for Rs.1.2 crore, were found to have underpaid stamp duty and registration fees by a total of Rs.5.09 lakh. After the deficiency was identified, they agreed to pay the shortfall, which included a Rs.25,000 penalty, confirmed by the Collector (Stamp) on December 9, 2020. The petitioners settled the amount on December 18, 2020.

 

However, a complaint from Shiv Prasad led the Collector (Stamp) to issue a new notice to the petitioners on December 31, 2020, aiming to revisit the original decision. The petitioners objected, arguing that the Collector (Stamp) had no power to recall an order that was not ex-parte.

 

Sanjay Goswami, representing the petitioners, argued that the Indian Stamp Act does not empower the Collector (Stamp) to review or recall his own orders under Section 47-A. In contrast, Siddhartha Singh, representing the respondents, stated that the new inquiry was initiated following allegations of forgery against the Sub Registrar, who had already provided an explanation.

 

The court examined a precedent set in the case of Sunil Kumar vs. State of U.P., where it was affirmed that a quasi-judicial authority, like the Collector (Stamp), cannot review its own orders without explicit statutory power. Justice Saraf emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must act strictly within their statutory limits and cannot overreach their legislative mandate.

 

The High Court also highlighted the differences in powers between constitutional courts and quasi-judicial authorities. While the former derive their extensive powers directly from the Constitution, the latter are confined to the specific powers granted by legislation. The court underscored that allowing quasi-judicial authorities to exceed their statutory powers would undermine the separation of powers and disrupt the legislative framework.

 

Additionally, the court noted that the State's affidavit, indicating an inquiry into the Sub Registrar's alleged misconduct, was incomplete and lacked details on subsequent actions. The court stressed the importance of thoroughly investigating such allegations to maintain the integrity and trust in public officials.

 

In conclusion, the High Court's decision reinforces the principle that quasi-judicial authorities must operate within their legally defined boundaries and cannot assume powers not expressly granted by the statute.