9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, J. ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. An order was passed by the Collector, Meerut on 24.12.2010 in a stamp case under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 determining deficiency in stamp duty in respect of the sale deed dated 14.8.2006. Petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 56 of the Act against the said order before the Commissioner of the Division who exercises powers of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority also. The appeal has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 8.8.2011. 3. Petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging both the above orders. 4. The primary ground for challenge is that the appellate order has been passed by the same officer who h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court or authority is allowed to be heard by the same officer who has passed the order impugned in appeal, it would make the appeal illusory and nugatory frustrating the purpose of its filing. 12. The appeal is conceptually different from a review. The review is reconsideration of the subject by the same judge to cure an error which may be apparent on record while an appeal is re-hearing of the matter by a superior Court/authority to test correctness of the decision of the lower court/authority. Allowing the appeal to be heard by the same officer who had passed the basic order would tantamount to reducing the appellate jurisdiction into that of review. Therefore, also no person should normally hear the appeal against his own order. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In R. Vishwanathan v. Abdul Wajid AIR 1963 SC 1 while dealing with the issue of the practice of having judges making a reference to the larger Bench as a member of the larger Bench, it was observed that it is desirable that a judge should not take part in the determination of appeal against his own decision unless the statute expressly authorizes him to do so. The principle is that one who has made the decision having a judicial flavour should not participate in appeal arising from such a decision. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the principles of law I am of the opinion that the Commissioner has manifestly erred in law and acted against the settled principles of natural justice by deciding the appeal again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
