Full Judgment
1 W.P. No.27874/2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA Writ Petition No.27874 / 2003 PETITIONER : Jay Pee Rewa Cement Ltd. Post Jay Pee Nagar, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS:
1. State of Madhya Pradesh through District Registrar, Gwalior (M.P.) 2. The Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh Gwalior.
3. The Collector of Stamps cum District Registrar 4. Sub Registrar Rewa Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner by Shri R.S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri K.K. Gautam, Advocate. Respondents by Shri R.D. Jain, Advocate General with Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER
(18.07.2013) The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of connected W.P. No.27875/2003, 27876/2003, 27877/2003, 27878/2003 and 27879/2003 since the impugned order 2 W.P. No.27874/2003 dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure-P/15) is common in all the matters.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition as demonstrated by Shri R.S. Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate for petitioner is that earlier the name of petitioner/Company was “Bela Cement ltd.”
. however lateron its name was changed to “Jay Pee Rewa Cement Ltd.”
.. There is an order of the Registrar of Company under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 accepting the changed name of company namely “Jay Pee Rewa Cement Ltd.”
.. It has been propounded that since lease deed was in the name of “Bela Cement Ltd.”
. therefore an application was submitted to change the name of “Jay Pee Rewa Cement Ltd.”
.. That application was allowed and order was passed by the State Government on 31.03.2001 (Annexure-P/4). Thereafter an agreement was executed between the State Government and newly named Company “Jay Pee Rewa Cement Ltd.”
. and the said agreement is dated 23.04.2001 (Annexure-P/5). The said agreement was also registered by the Sub Registrar, but, lateron he referred the matter to the Collector (Stamps) that the document of agreement is having deficit stamp duty, but, the Collector (Stamps) on 20.08.2002 (Annexure-P/7) did not agree and rejected the contention of Sub Registrar that the agreement is on deficit stamp duty.
3. The order of Collector (Stamps) was assailed by the State Government before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority 3 W.P. No.27874/2003 i.e. Board of Revenue by filing revision application which was registered as Revision No.2374-II/2002 and the same was dismissed by order dated 02.05.2003 (Annexure-P/10) by upholding the order of Collector (Stamps). Thereafter, a review application was filed by the State Government praying to review the order dated 02.05.2003 of Board of Revenue on the ground that the Member who decided the revision application was not in Gwalior and he was on tour and therefore there was no occasion for him to dismiss the revision of State Government on 02.05.2003. Hence, according to the State Government the order was without jurisdiction and was antedated.
4. The Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure-P/15) allowed the review application and further directed and transferred the revision application for its decision on merits to the Administrative Member of the Board. Hence, this petition and connected petitions have been filed by the petitioner.
5. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for petitioner is two-folded. Firstly his submission is that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was not having any jurisdiction to review the order of revision because there is no such provision in the Indian Stamp Act. The second contention is that even if for a moment it is assumed that he was having jurisdiction to hear the review 4 W.P. No.27874/2003 application since the said order has been passed without hearing the petitioner, therefore, the order suffers from illegality because the same runs contrary to the principle of natural justice. It has also been propounded by him that service upon the counsel for petitioner to remain present at the time of hearing of the review application is also not effected which according to him is apparent from the impugned order dated 02.09.2003. On these premised submissions it has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel that this petition and connected petitions be allowed and the impugned order dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure-P/15) be set aside and the order dated 02.05.2003 (Annexure-P/10) passed on the revision application dismissing the revision application of the State Government be restored.
6. On the other hand, Shri R.D. Jain, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that counsel for the petitioner was served before passing the impugned order dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure-P/15) reviewing the order passed in revision dated 02.05.2003 (Annexure-P/10). It has also been put-forth by him that earlier the name of petitioner/Company was “Bela Cement Ltd.”
. but lateron it was changed to “Jay Pee Bela Plant”. unit of Jay Pee Rewa Cement Ltd. and therefore the petitioner is required to pay the deficit stamp duty 5 W.P. No.27874/2003 because it is an assignment. In this regard my attention has been adverted to the document (Annexure-P/5). However, this position has been controverted by Shri R.S. Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel that factual aspect is not correct. Lastly it has been argued by learned Advocate General that under Section 56 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 unless the context otherwise requires, expression “order”. would mean the formal expression of the decision given by the Board or a Revenue Officer in respect of any matter in exercise of its/his powers under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force, as the case may be and therefore according learned Advocate General the review application was maintainable under Section 51 of the Code which is in respect to review of the orders.
7. Be that as it may, the crux of the petition is whether without serving any notice upon the petitioner, the order dated 02.05.2003 (Annexure-P/10) passed in revision dismissing the revision application of the State Government could be reviewed in absence of hearing the petitioner/Company or its counsel. On bare perusal of the impugned order dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure-P/15) it is revealed that the notice which was sent to the petitioner/Company did not receive back after service. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner/Company deliberately got the notice served upon one Sunita Sharma. Who is this Sunita Sharma 6 W.P. No.27874/2003 there is nothing on record and therefore I am of the view that if on behalf of Company, Sunita Sharma has received notice on 01.09.2003 for hearing of the review application for date of hearing 02.09.2003 it cannot be said that petitioner-Company was served. Thus, according to me, the order of review dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure-P/15) passed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the order passed by Member Judge dismissing the revision petition of the State of M.P. on 02.05.2003 (Annexure-P/10), was without hearing the petitioner. This Court is not entering into the niceties as to whether review application was maintainable or not. However, on the short ground that the petitioner was not heard before passing the order and allowing the review application of the State Government, the impugned order dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure-P/15) is set aside and is hereby quashed. The case is remanded back to the Board of Revenue to hear the petitioner/Company upon the review application. The petitioner shall be free to raise the objections that review application is not maintainable and similarly the State Government shall be free to argue that the review application does lie. After hearing the parties on the merits as well as on its maintainability of the review application, it may be decided in accordance with law by the Board of Revenue. The Parties shall remain present before the Board of Revenue on 29.08.2013 and for this date no separate notice shall be issued to either of the parties. 7 W.P. No.27874/2003 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition as well as connected petitions succeeds and are hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure-P/15 is hereby set aside. No costs.
9. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of connected writ petitions. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge 18.07.2013 SS