9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of Additional District Magistrate (ADM) u/s 47-A of the Stamp Act, cancellation of previous order, imposition of additional stamp duty and penalty, power of review by the Collector.
The judgment dealt with a petition challenging the order of the ADM cancelling a previous order and imposing additional stamp duty and penalty. The initial order dated 28-2-83 was passed by the ADM under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, determining the valuation of a property covered by a sale deed. The subsequent order dated 13-9-83 cancelling the earlier order was found to be without jurisdiction as it did not provide any reasons for the cancellation and did not cite any provision under which the earlier order was being reviewed. The Court emphasized that the powers exercisable by the Collector under Section 47-A are quasi-judicial in nature and cannot be disturbed or reopened without an express provision for review in the enactment. The judgment cited legal precedents to support the principle that the power of review must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. In this case, the ADM's order cancelling the previous order was deemed to be completely without jurisdiction as there was no power of review vested in the ADM. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner was awarded costs. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the lack of jurisdiction in the ADM's order cancelling the previous order passed under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. It highlighted the importance of a legal basis for the power of review and emphasized that quasi-judicial decisions cannot be reopened without specific provisions allowing for such a review. The Court held that the ADM's actions were unauthorized, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders and a favorable outcome for the petitioner in terms of costs.
|
