TRIDESHWARDAYAL Vs. MAHBSHWARDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case arises out of a proceeding under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Special leave is granted.

(2.) A dispute between the appellants and the respondent No. 1, who are members of a family, was referred to an arbitrator, who made an award on 9-10-1973, and filed the same within a few days before the civil court for making it a rule of the court. On objection by the present appellants, the prayer was rejected on 18-3-1976 and the order was confirmed by the High Court on 8-7-1981 (reported in AIR 1982 All 117) in a regular first appeal. An application for special leave was dismissed by this Court on 18-4-1983 and a prayer for review was also rejected. It is stated on behalf of the appellants that in the meantime the respondent No. 1 applied before the Collector for summoning the award and realising the duty and penalty. A copy of the award was annexed to the application. The respondent's prayer was opposed by the appellants but was allowed by the Collector on 15-7-1983; and, on a request made to the civil court for sending the award, the civil court asked the office to do so. The appellants moved the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under S. 56 of the Indian Stamps Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Collector's order dated 15-7-1983. The Authority in exercise of its revisional power set aside the impugned order of the Collector, inter alia, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The respondent challenged this judgment before the High Court in a writ case which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 27-2-1989 (AIR 1989 All 206). The matter was remanded to the Collector to decide the case afresh in the light of the observations. The High Court also doubted the power of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to entertain the appellants' application under S. 56 of the Act. This judgment is the subject matter of the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Satish Chandra, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that there cannot be any doubt about the power of the Chief Controlling Authority to correct an erroneous order of the Collector. Emphasis was laid on the language of S. 56 suggesting its wide application. The learned counsel was also right in arguing that the Authority is not only vested with jurisdiction but has the duty to quash an order passed by the Collector purporting to be under Chapters IV and V of the Act by exercising power beyond his jurisdiction. To hold otherwise will lead to an absurd situation where a subordinate authority makes an order beyond its jurisdiction, which will have to be suffered on account of its unassailability before a higher authority. This Court in Janardhan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad, 1951 SCR 344 : (AIR 1951 SC 217), after referring to a number of decisions, observed that it is well settled that if a Court acts without 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. We, therefore, agree with the appellants that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had full power to interfere with the Collector's order, provided it was found to be erroneous. Their difficulty, however, is that we do not find any defect in the Collector directing to take steps for the realisation of the stamp duty.