ABHISHEK CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Indore in first appeal in case No. 10/99-2000/Appeal dated 30.4.2001.

(2.) THE case, in brief, is that the appellant Society purchased some land from four sellers for the ostensible purpose of making housing for the members of the Cooperative Society and, therefore, while registering the sale-deed, the Society mentioned this fact in the heading of the sale-deed and also did not pay any stamp duty on the sales. Stamp duty was not paid allegedly because the land was supposed to be used for and by a cooperative housing society. The land was purchased in 1997 but after some time a person by the name of Mahavir Gupta made a complaint before the Collector that the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1889 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been flouted and the land in question had in fact been used for building a commercial complex and, therefore stamp duty to the tune of several lakhs of Rupees had been very cleverly evaded. Acting on the complaint, the Collector made an enquiry and since his enquiry revealed that the complaint was prima-facie correct, he took up the case in suo-motu revision and passed an order on 24.9.1999 to the effect that the appellant Society must bear stamp duty and registration fee amounting to Rs.64,35,908/-. Against this order, the appellants went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Indore, who rejected their appeal, hence this appeal.

(3.) THE second argument put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the case has not really been taken up in suo-motu revision as the Collector has not done so on his own motion but has acted on a complaint of a third party. I am surprised at the ignorance of the learned counsel on this issue. No matter leading to an issue to be considered in suo-motu revision suddenly occurrs to the Collector. It is only when through some channel of information that he acquires knowledge of violation of the law does he take up the matter in suo-motu revision. This case was taken up in suo-motu revision because the Collector first found the complaint to be prima-facie correct. The learned counsel for the appellant also made yet another ridiculous claim that the case is barred by 'res-judicata' because Shri Gupta who filed a complaint before the Collector, had also filed a writ petition in the High Court but later on had withdrawn it. The appellant's counsel, therefore, argued that since Shri Gupta had withdrawn his case, he has no business to start a fresh one. I am afraid the learned counsel does not even understand the basic concepts of 'res-judicata'. That principle applies when a matter between two parlies is either admitted or decided by a Court of Law and, therefore, the same matter cannot be raised again between the same two parties. In this case Shri Gupta is not a party to the suo-motu revision undertaken by the Collector and neither was the Collector a party to that writ petition and therefore the Collector cannot be barred by Shri Gupta's withdrawal of the writ petition in that case.