# Smt. Shivani Chaurasia & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1528
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-17
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 13775 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shivani-chaurasia-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51973
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act,1899 -
Section 47-A - Under-valuation of the
instrument - Review / Recall - Once the
market value of the property is adjudicated
and determined by the Collector under
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the
Collector
(Stamp)
has
no
power
to
reassess, review, or recall the said order.

B.
Civil
Law
-
Power
of
review
-
Constitutional Courts vs. Quasi-Judicial
Authorities - Constitutional courts, being
courts of record, enjoy inherent powers to
review their own orders and correct errors
in the interest of justice - In contrast,
quasi-judicial authorities lack inherent
powers and can only exercise those powers
which have been expressly conferred upon
them by the statutes - Quasi-judicial
authorities cannot arbitrarily review or
recall their orders unless such power is
5 All. Smt. Shivani Chaurasia & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1529
specifically conferred upon them by their
governing statue (Para 9)

C. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act,1899 -
Petitioners purchased agricultural land for a
sale consideration of ₹1,20,00,000 - Sub
Registrar pointed out a deficiency of
₹4,45,790
in
stamp
duty,
and
made
reference
u/s
47-A,
leading
to
the
registration of a stamp case - After hearing,
Collector (Stamp) adjudicated the market
value and confirmed the deficiency -
petitioners deposited the entire amount -
However,
on
complaint
by
a
private
individual, the Collector recalled his earlier
order and passed a fresh order - subsequent
order by which the earlier order was
cancelled neither contains any reasons nor
records that the previous order was obtained
through
fraud
or
misrepresentation
-
Impugned order quashed (Para 5)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court to the extent that the appellant can
provide an alternative therapy so long as it
is not banned by any competent authority.
Without possessing a degree or diploma
recognized by a legislation enacted by the
competent legislature, the appellant would
not be entitled to practise medicine. We also
clarify that no degree or diploma can be
conferred otherwise than what is permitted
or recognised in law. The undertaking
furnished to the High Court shall be
complied with.
With the aforesaid modification in
the order passed by the High Court, the
appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs."

(16) Having traced the relevant
orders and clarifications issued by the
Central Government, State Government as
well as the Supreme Court from time to
time, this Court arrives at an inescapable
conclusion that although no institution can
confer a diploma or degree in Electro
Homeopathy, however, as there is no ban,
the petitioners can always practice Electro
Homeopathy as an alternative therapy
within the parameters of order dated
25.11.2003. This Court also finds that in the
absence of any statutory provisions, there
could not be any conferring of diploma or
degrees
in
Electropathy
or
Electro
Homeopathy in India, however, there is no
bar in issuance of Certificate for the said
study.

(17) In view of the aforesaid, it is
held that the petitioners can practice Electro
Homeopathy so long as it is not banned by
any competent authority. They, however,
cannot use the prefix "Doctor" before their
name. Accordingly, a direction for noninterference by the respondents/authorities
concerned and consequential relief of
permitting the petitioners to practice Electro
Homeopathy system of medicine in the State
of Uttar Pradesh, till the rules in that regard
is framed by the competent authority, is also
issued.

(18) With the aforesaid directions,
the writ petition stands disposed of.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1528
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ-C No. 13775 of 2023

Smt. Shivani Chaurasia & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjay Goswami

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Siddharth Singh, S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act,1899 -
Section 47-A - Under-valuation of the
instrument - Review / Recall - Once the
market value of the property is adjudicated
and determined by the Collector under
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the
Collector
(Stamp)
has
no
power
to
reassess, review, or recall the said order.

B.
Civil
Law
-
Power
of
review
-
Constitutional Courts vs. Quasi-Judicial
Authorities - Constitutional courts, being
courts of record, enjoy inherent powers to
review their own orders and correct errors
in the interest of justice - In contrast,
quasi-judicial authorities lack inherent
powers and can only exercise those powers
which have been expressly conferred upon
them by the statutes - Quasi-judicial
authorities cannot arbitrarily review or
recall their orders unless such power is
5 All. Smt. Shivani Chaurasia & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1529
specifically conferred upon them by their
governing statue (Para 9)

C. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act,1899 -
Petitioners purchased agricultural land for a
sale consideration of ₹1,20,00,000 - Sub
Registrar pointed out a deficiency of
₹4,45,790
in
stamp
duty,
and
made
reference
u/s
47-A,
leading
to
the
registration of a stamp case - After hearing,
Collector (Stamp) adjudicated the market
value and confirmed the deficiency -
petitioners deposited the entire amount -
However,
on
complaint
by
a
private
individual, the Collector recalled his earlier
order and passed a fresh order - subsequent
order by which the earlier order was
cancelled neither contains any reasons nor
records that the previous order was obtained
through
fraud
or
misrepresentation
-
Impugned order quashed (Para 5)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Milap Chandra Jain Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 1988
All. L.J. 1078

2. Sunil Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2016(6) AWC
6522

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. In the instant writ petition the order
dated February 3, 2023 passed by the District
Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Jaunpur has been
assailed on the ground that the Collector (Stamp)
lacks the power to recall or review an order by
him under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

FACTS

2. The facts of the instant case have
been delineated below: -

(a) The petitioners purchased an
agricultural land measuring 0.216 hectare
(Gata No.176 'Aa') situated in Mauza
Jagdishpur (Ramnagar Bhadsara), Pargana
Haveli, Tahsil Sadar, District Jaunpur, from
one Sandeep Kumar, the bhumidhar of the
land, on July 23, 2020 for a sale
consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Circle
Rate). Rs.1,25,280/- were paid towards the
registration fee. The sale deed was
registered on the same day by the Sub
Registrar.
(b) The Sub Registrar submitted a
confidential report dated September 14,
2020 to the Assistant Inspector General
(Registration), Jaunpur. In the said report, a
deficiency of Rs.4,45,790/- in stamp duty
and Rs.63,690/- of registration fee was
pointed out.
(c) A stamp case was registered and
notice was issued to the petitioners. They
appeared before the Collector (Stamp) and
agreed to deposit the amount to avoid the
imposition of penalty.
(d) The Collector (Stamp) heard the
case, considered the material available on
record and after adjudicating the market
value of the land, boundary wall and
existing trees, it held that there was a
deficiency of Rs.4,45,790/- in stamp duty
and Rs.63,690/- in registration fee. The
Collector also imposed a penalty of
Rs.25,000/- vide order dated December 9,
2020. The petitioners deposited the entire
amount on December 18, 2020.
(e) One Shiv Prasad, son of Chauthi
Singh, filed a complaint on December 23,
2020 seeking recall of the order dated
December 9, 2020. Acting on the complaint
of the said private person, another notice
dated December 31, 2020 was issued by the
Collector (Stamp) to the petitioners.
(f) The petitioners filed an objection
against the aforesaid second notice on the
ground that the order dated December 9,
2020 was a final order which was passed
after consideration of the evidence on record
1530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and it is not an ex-parte order. The
petitioners assailed the legality of the second
notice issued to them.
(g) Thereafter, the Collector passed
a fresh order on February 3, 2023 which is
now under challenge in the instant writ
petition.

SUBMISSION
OF
THE
PETITIONERS

3. Counsel on behalf of the
petitioners submits that there is no power
conferred on the Collector(Stamp) to recall
an order passed under Section 47-A of the
Act and subsequently reassess/review his
earlier order. The petitioners have relied on
the judgment of a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Milap Chandra Jain vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in 1988
All. L.J. 1078 and another judgment of a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Sunil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in 2016(6) AWC 6522.

SUBMISSIONS
OF
THE
RESPONDENTS

4. Counsel on behalf of the
respondents submits that based on the
complaint filed by one Shiv Prasad, inquiry
has been started against the Sub Registrar
wherein a show cause notice was issued to
the Sub Registrar to explain the allegations
made by the complainant with regards to the
forgery of certain documents. He further
submits that this inquiry is still underway.
An explanation was provided by the Sub
Registrar in response to the show cause
notice. However, counsel on behalf of the
respondents failed to explain to this Court or
bring forward any material to indicate as to
what steps have been taken subsequent to
the receipt of the explanation of the Sub
Registrar.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

5. Upon a perusal of the documents
and after hearing the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties, one has to
first examine whether the Collector (Stamp)
who acts as a quasi-judicial authority
possesses any power, inherent or statutory,
to recall/review an order passed under
Section 47-A of the Act. Upon a perusal of
the Act, it is apparent that no such power
seems to be made available to the Collector.
The Division Bench of this Court in Milap
Chandra Jain's case (supra) examined this
particular issue and made the following
observations:-

"6. We have not the slightest doubt
that the market value of the property having
been adjudicated and determined by the
Collector in the exercise of powers
expressly conferred upon him under Section
47-A and in accordance with the procedure
laid down therein, the same could not be
reopened and reviewed except in accordance
with law. The powers exercisable by the
Collector under S. 47-A are unarguably
quasi judicial in nature. There is a procedure
laid down for the determination of the
valuation which clearly affects the rights of
the person who is called upon to pay
additional
stamp
duty
in
case
the
adjudication goes against him. That being
so, an adjudication made by the Collector
under S. 47-A of the Stamp Act could not be
disturbed or reopened unless there is an
express
provision
in
the
enactment
conferring power of review by the authority
making that order. It is settled law that the
power of review on merits is not an inherent
power. Such a power must flow from some
specific provision in the enactment under
which rights of the parties are determined.
We are amply fortified here with several
decisions of the Supreme Court on this
5 All. Smt. Shivani Chaurasia & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1531
aspect of the controversy. Thus in Patel
Narshi
Thakarshi v. Praduman
Singhji,
(1971) 3 SCC 844 : AIR 1970 SC 1273 at p.
1275 para 4, their Lordships of the Supreme
Court observed as follows:
"It is well settled that the power to
review is not an inherent power. It must be
conferred by law either specifically or by
necessary implication. No provision in the
Act was brought to our notice from which it
would be gathered that the Government had
power to review its own order. If the
Government had no power to review its own
order, it is obvious that its delegate could not
have reviewed its order."

7. Again in Chunibhai v. Narayan
Rao, AIR 1965 SC 1457 at pp. 1466-67 para
23, their Lordships reiterated the same view
as follows:-

"These
orders
passed
by
the
Collector in the exercise of his revisional
powers were quasi-judicial and were final.
The Act does not empower the Collector to
review an order passed by him under Section
76-A. In the absence of any power of review,
the Collector could not subsequently
reconsider his previous decisions and hold
that there were grounds for annulling or
reversing
the
Mahalkar's
order.
The
subsequent order dated February 17, 1959
reopening the matter was illegal, ultra vires
and without jurisdiction."

8. It is unnecessary to encumber
this decision with other authorities as it is
now too late in the day to contest the settled
legal position that in the absence of a
provision for review an authority or even a
tribunal for that matter cannot review orders
passed in the exercise of quasi judicial
functions. It cannot be seriously challenged
that proceedings under Section 47-A of the
Stamp Act are quasi judicial in nature.
9. With this legal premise we
examine the facts of the present case. As
mentioned above, the order dated 28-2-83
was passed upon a reference expressly made
under Section 47-A by the Sub-Registrar it
was
the
result
of
a
quasi-judicial
determination achieved after hearing both
the parties in accordance with the procedure
laid down under Section 47-A. The order
dated 13-9-83 cancelling the order dated 282-83 does not disclose any reasons
whatsoever in support thereof. It does not
state that the earlier order was obtained by
fraud or misrepresentation and the like. It
was not suggested that the order was passed
under any misapprehension. The mere fact,
therefore,
that
Sri
Nathulal
Tanwar
Advocate came forward with a higher offer
of Rs. 2,50,000/- could not authorise the
ADM to reopen the matter. If this procedure
is countenanced, no finality would ever
attach to the determination made by the
Collector under Section 47-A as someone or
the other could always be trusted to come
forward with a higher offer, the prices of the
real properties spiraling the way they have
been these days. It would be setting up a
dangerous precedent if orders passed under
Section 47-A are reopened on the ground on
which they have been done in the present
case.

10. The learned Standing counsel
was unable to point out any provision
whether in the Stamp Act or even in the
Registration Act which could disclose the
existence of such a power of review upon
the
Collector.
The
learned
Standing
Counsel, however, pointed out sub-section
(4) of Section 47-A as conferring such a
power of review upon the Collector."

11. The submission cannot be
accepted as sub-section (4) comes into play
only if the matter had not already been
1532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
referred to the Collector under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) of Section 47-A. In the
present case, the dispute had already been
specifically referred to and answered by the
Collector under Section 47-A of the Stamp
Act."

6. A coordinate Bench of this Court
in Sunil Kumar's case (supra) has held as
under:-

"10. It cannot be disputed that the
impugned order has been passed by a quasi
judicial authority and such authority cannot
review its order in absence of power of
review conferred under the Statute.
11. The power of review of quasi
judicial authority in absence of specific
provision under the statute has been dealt
with in several cases of this Court as well as
by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the
case of Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v.
Management
of
Hindu
Kanya
Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, U.P. and Ors.,
reported in MANU/SC/0104/1987 : (1987)
4 Supreme Court Cases 525 : (AIR 1987 SC
2186) has held that unless power of Review
is expressly conferred on the authority by
any statute under which it derives its'
jurisdiction, the authority concerned has no
power to Review its' earlier order. In para-11
of
the
aforesaid
judgment
following
observations has been made:
A quasi-judicial authority cannot
review its own order, unless the power of
review is expressly conferred on it by the
statute
under
which
it
derives
its
jurisdiction.
The
Vice-Chancellor
in
considering the question of approval of an
order of dismissal of the Principal, acts as a
quasi-judicial authority. The provisions of
the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or of
the Statutes of the University do not confer
any power of review on the Vice-Chancellor.
In the circumstances, it must be held that the
Vice-Chancellor
acted wholly without
jurisdiction in reviewing, his/her earlier
order. The review order of the ViceChancellor was, therefore, a nullity.
12. In the case of G. Srinivas v.
Govt, of A.P. and Ors., reported in
MANU/SC/0634/2005 : AIR 2005 SC 4455,
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed:
An order passed by mistake and
ignorance of the relevant facts indisputably
can be reviewed, if inter alia it is found that
a fraud was practiced or there was wilful
suppression on the part of the appellant.

13. The Full Bench of this Court
reported in MANU/UP/1127/1997 : 1997
(31) ALR 680 : (1997 All U 2363) (Smt.
Shvraji and Ors. v. Dy. Director of
Consolidation, Allahabad and Ors.) has
held:
36. Coming to the provisions of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is our
considered view that the consolidation
authorities, particularly the Deputy Director
of Consolidation while deciding a revision
petition exercises judicial or quasi judicial
power and, therefore his order is final
subject to any power of appeal or revision
vested in superior authority under the Act.
The consolidation authorities, particularly
the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is not
vested with any power of review of his order
and,
therefore,
cannot
reopen
any
proceeding and cannot review or revise his
earlier order. However, as a judicial or quasi
judicial authority he has the power to correct
any clerical mistake/arithmetical error,
manifest error in his order in exercise of his
inherent power as a tribunal.

14. In the case of Syed Madadgar Husain
Rizvi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.,
reported in MANU/UP/1034/2007 : 2007
(9) ADJ 581 (DB) : (2007 (6) ALJ (NOC)
1097 (All) this Court has held:
5 All. Smt. Shivani Chaurasia & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1533
A quasi judicial authority is not permitted to
review its order unless it is so expressly
conferred by the Statute itself. "

7. From an overview of the
judgments cited above, it is clear that the
Collector (Stamp) cannot recall and/or
review his own order as no such power has
been conferred under Section 47-A of the
Act. A quasi-judicial authority is limited in
its functionality in as much as it has to act
within the four corners of the statute from
which it derives its authority. If the statute
does not provide for a particular act, the
same cannot be undertaken by that authority.
Any such action taken de hors the legislative
intent would amount to an overreach and
beyond the power of the said authority.

8. Constitutional Courts, such as the
High Courts and the Supreme Court, derive
their powers and jurisdiction directly from
the Constitution of India. These courts are
vested with extensive powers, including the
authority to interpret the Constitution,
adjudicate constitutional matters, and serve
as courts of record. On the other hand, quasijudicial authorities are statutory bodies or
officials empowered by specific legislation
to adjudicate disputes and make decisions
within their defined scope of authority.
Unlike constitutional courts, quasi-judicial
authorities do not possess inherent powers
derived from the Constitution; rather, their
jurisdiction and powers are conferred by
statutes or delegated legislation.

9.

The
distinction
between
constitutional
courts
and
quasi-judicial
authorities is significant, particularly when it
comes to the exercise of review or recall
powers. Constitutional courts, being courts of
record under the Constitution, enjoy inherent
powers to review their own orders and correct
errors in the interest of justice. This inherent
power is derived from the constitutional
mandate and is essential for maintaining
judicial independence and upholding the rule
of law. In contrast, quasi-judicial authorities
lack inherent powers and can only exercise
those powers which have been expressly
conferred upon them by the statutes from
which they derive their jurisdiction. The
absence of inherent powers means that quasijudicial authorities cannot arbitrarily review or
recall their orders unless such power is
specifically conferred upon them by their
governing statue.

10. The rationale behind limiting the
review powers of quasi-judicial authorities lies
in ensuring adherence to the principle of
separation of powers and preserving the
integrity of the legislative scheme. Quasijudicial authorities, being creatures of statute,
must operate within the boundaries set forth by
the legislature and therefore they cannot
exceed their statutory mandate. Any attempt
by quasi-judicial authorities to exercise the
power of review or recall outside the bounds
of statutory authorization is inherently flawed
and constitutes a usurpation of judicial
authority. Such exercises of power are void ab
initio, meaning they are null and void from the
outset, and cannot be sustained in law.

11. The legislature, in its wisdom,
may choose to grant limited review powers
to certain quasi-judicial authorities based on
the nature of the disputes they adjudicate
and the need for effective administration of
justice. However, any expansion of review
powers beyond what is expressly provided
by statute undermines the principles of
legislative
supremacy
and
judicial
independence. Given
the
absence
of
inherent powers and the statutory limitations
on review, quasi-judicial authorities must
exercise prudence and restraint in revisiting
their earlier decisions.
1534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. In the instant case, it is clear that
no such power was present with the
Collector (Stamp), and therefore, the
exercise of review carried out by the
Collector (Stamp) is bad in law. In light of
the same, the impugned order dated
February 3, 2023 is quashed and set-aside
and this writ petition is allowed.

EPILOGUE

13. During the course of the hearing, an
affidavit was filed by the State-respondents
indicating that a show cause notice was issued on
January 6, 2021 to the Sub Registrar with regards
to the alleged fabricated and forged report. In
reply to the said show cause notice, an
explanation dated January 14, 2021 was
provided by the Sub Registrar. However, the
affidavit is incomplete and does not contain any
mention as to what steps were taken subsequent
to the explanation provided by the Sub Registrar.
It appears that the matter was put to rest and the
inquiry was not taken forward. The allegations
made against the Sub Registrar were quite grave
in nature, and therefore, the State Government
should have ensured that a proper inquiry is
carried out.

14. In the realm of legal proceedings,
transparency, accountability, and the pursuit of
justice are paramount. The allegations made
against the Sub Registrar strike at the core of the
trust and integrity expected of public officials
entrusted with important responsibilities. It is
incumbent upon the State Government to
diligently investigate these allegations and take
appropriate actions to address any wrongdoing.
The affidavit submitted to this court raises
concerns
regarding
the
adequacy
and
thoroughness of the inquiry conducted so far. No
individual, regardless of their position or
authority, is above scrutiny or immune from
accountability. Public officials entrusted with the
responsibility of upholding the law and serving
the interests of the public must conduct
themselves with the utmost integrity and
diligence. The State Government, as the
custodian of public trust, must demonstrate
unwavering commitment to upholding the
principles of accountability and transparency.
Any laxity or indifference in addressing
allegations of misconduct undermines the
credibility of the entire administrative machinery
and erodes confidence in public institutions.

15. Accordingly, this Courts directs the
Principal Secretary, Stamp and Registration,
Government of Uttar Pradesh to initiate/continue
with the inquiry initiated against the Sub
Registrar and bring the same to a logical end.
The Principal Secretary is directed to conclude
his enquiry within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of this order and submit a
report to this Court. Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to the
Principal Secretary, Stamp and Registration,
Government of Uttar Pradesh forthwith.

16. There shall be no order as to the
costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1534
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Writ-C No. 41122 of 2019

Housing Development Finance Corp. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner: