GOPAL KRISHNA PATHAK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Both the counsels have agreed that the writ petition be disposed of at this stage.

(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9-5-2003 passed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by which the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the revision was filed against the order dated 30- 11-2002 passed by Assistant Commissioner Stamps. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the revision an application was filed for accepting the revision without certified copy of the impugned order dated 30-11-2002. An affidavit has also been filed along with the said application in which it has been stated that on an enquiry he came to know that the record has been sent in pursuance of letter of the Special Secretary, Kar and Nibandhan Anubhag, U. P. Administration, Lucknow hence he is unable to obtain certified copy of the order. The counsel for the petitioner contended that Chief Controlling Revenue Authority without considering the said application has rejected the revision as not maintainable.

(3.) THE petitioner in the affidavit dated 7-5-2003 has stated that the certified copy of the impugned order was annexed to the writ petition and when the revisionist tried to obtain another certified copy then he came to know that on a complaint made of the Presiding Officer enquiry has been set up and the record has been sent to the administration in pursuance of the letter of Special Secretary, Kar & Nibandhan Anubhag, U. P. Administration, Lucknow. On stating the aforesaid fact it was stated that the revision be accepted without certified copy of the impugned order. THE Chief Controlling Revenue Authority without considering the application dated 7-5-2003 and the affidavit giving reasons for not filing the certified copy, has rejected the revision as not maintainable. However, sufficient reasons were given by the petitioner for not filing the certified copy of the order along with the revision. THE Chief Controlling Revenue Authority without adverting to the said reasons has mechanically rejected the revision. Under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act the power exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and V are subject to control of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case there was no lack of power with the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in summoning the original record of the Assistant Commissioner Stamp. THE counsel for the petitioner has stated that uncertified copy of the order dated 30-11-2002 was filed along with the revision.