ORDER
1. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), respondent No. 2 raising a demand of Rs. 70,000/-towards the deficiency in stamp duty and penalty thereon on a re-determination of the correctness of the market value of the property which was the subject matter of the sale deed in respect of the vacant land executed in favour of the petitioner which re-determination took place in the proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable to the State of U.P.
2. Along with the aforesaid revision the petitioner filed an application for interim relief praying that during the pendency of the revision, recovery of the amount in dispute be stayed. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 3-2-1994, while admitting the revision for hearing, granted an interim order of stay whereunder the recovery proceedings for the realisation of the amount of penalty was stayed in full but the respondent No. I stayed the recovery of only half of the stamp duty payable under the order impugned in the revision in view of 'exposition in 1993 R.J. 326' -- its own earlier decision.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress, praying for the quashing of the impunged order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the impunged order cannot be sustained not only because it had been passed in an improper exercise of jurisdiction but also because it amounted to a flagrant disregard of the decisions of this Court which had been rendered after having heard the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, respondent No., 1 which orders had also attained finality. It has further been asserted that in spite of the decision of this Court on the point having been specifically brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 he chose a course of action different than the one which he was bound to take following the decisions of this Court and its ratio which were binding upon it being an authority subordinate to this Court.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent-authorities and have also perused the record. I have also perused the decisions of this Court rendered by two Division Benches in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. NIL of 1992 Bhuvneshwar Prasad v. State of U.P., Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue U.P., Allahabad and another decided on 24-11-1992 and Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 7294 Smt. Parwati Parasrampuria v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Allahabad decided on 11-2-1994 and also a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Lalti v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority reported in 1992 RD 468, as well as another decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. NIL of 1994 Sri Mahesh Kumar v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue decided on 5-1-1994 following the decision in the case of Smt. Lalti and requiring the respondent No. 1 to abide by the said judgment infuture to avoid unnecessary litigation. The learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents has tried to support the impugned order on the basis of the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P. Allahabad in the case of Smt. Champa Devi'v. State of U.P. reported in 1993 Revenue judgments p 326 decided on 24-6-1993 referred to in the impugned order.
6. It may be noticed that this Court in its decision in the case of Smt. Lalti v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority decided on 31-7-1992 reported in 1992 RD 458 had, while considering the course of action to be adopted while granting interim relief in the matter as involved in the present case, had required the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to finally decide the revision filed under Section 56 of the Stamp Act within a period of six months during which period the further proceedings for the recovery of the amount in-dispute was to remain stayed provided the revisionist furnished within two weeks ade-quate securit other than cash or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the authority whose decision was the subject matter of the revision admitted for hearing by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority; for there realisation of the amount in dispute in the event of the dismissal of the revision.
7. It may further be noticed that in its earlier decision of this Court in the case of Bhuveneshwar Prasad (supra) after hearing the learned counsel for the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, this Court had directed that during the pendency of the revision/ reference the realisation of the difference of the stamp duty was to remain stayed Similarly in its decision in the case of Smt. Parwati Parasrampuria (supra) which was decided after hearing the counsel representing the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority it was directed that the amount in dispute was not to be realised from the revisionist till the revision under Section 56 of the Stamp Act was not disposed of further requiring the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to endeavour to dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible.
8. The sole object of the Indian Stamp Act is to increase revenue and its provisions must be construed as having in view only the protection of revenue. Although the provisions contained in the Act impose pecuniary burdens and this Act is a fiscal enactment yet considering the implications involved therein its provisions must be given a construction which prevents undue hardship to the subject.
9. While it should not be lost sight of that in a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment or prescription or balancing of equities yet it has to be kept in mind that in the proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, Stamp Authorities who are only concerned with the collection of fiscal duty stand authorised and in fact called upon to re-determine the correct market value of the subject matter of the 'instruments' referred to therein in which the market value appears to have been incorrectly set-fourth. The entire exercise to be undertaken under the aforesaid provision appears to be with the objective to neutralise the effect of under valuation of the property with a view to evading stamp duty.
10. It will be apparent from the above that the question as to what duty is chargeable on the instrument has to be decided in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 47A of the Act. When a revision under Section 56 of the Stamp Act challenging an order imposing a liability in the matter relating to the payment of stamp duty or penalty is admitted to hearing the lis relating to the payment of a higher amount of stamp duty and penalty gets reopened and the revising authority, taking into consideration the provisions contained in Section 56 of the Act can come to its own conclusions on the basis of the evidence and the materials on the record virtually exercising a jurisdiction which is akin to an appellate jurisdiction. The provisions contained in Section 48 of the Indian Stamp Act provide that all the duties penalties and other sums required to be paid under Chapter IV of the Act may be recovered by the Collector by distress and sale of the movable property of the person from whom the same are due, or by any other process for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue.
11. As an appellate court does have an inherent power to grant an interim relief of stay, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority while exercising the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act does possess such a jurisdiction cannot admit of any doubt. The main purpose of passing an interim order is to evolve a workable formula or a workable arrangement to the extent called for by the demands of the situation and to ensure that no irreparable injury is occasioned. The court has, therefore, to stirke a delicate balance after considering the pros and cons of the matter lest larger public interest is not jeopardised and institutional embarrassment is eschewed.
12. It may be noticed that taking into consideration all the relevant factors, this Court in its decision in the case of Smt. Lalti (supra) had evolved a workable formula or a workable arrangement which was considered to be proper while granting interim relief during the pendency of a revision under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act.
13. The question which arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, while passing the impugned order has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it in an improper manner warranting an inference by this Court.
14. As provided under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India every High Court has the power through out the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate case, any Government, within those terrorities, directions orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the rightsconferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. Further Art. 227 of the Constitution provides that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercised jurisdiction.
15. The High Court, thus, occupies the status of the highest and most superior court in the state and so it becomes incumbent on all persons or authorities within its jurisdiction to respect its orders and abide by well known principle fundamental to the courts of justice that any disobedience or disregard to any order passed by the High Court will be on pain of committal for contempt.
16. The proper course is in the first instance to submit to the order passed by the High Court and then to move the court issuing the order to have it set aside on the ground of irregualrity, want of jurisdiction or otherwise.
17. It must not be lost sight of that it is implicit in the power of supervision conferred on a superior court that all Tribunal subject to its supervision should conform to the law laid down by it otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrively suffer.
18. It has to be emphasised that not following the decision of the High Court is apt to create confusion in the administration of law. It will not only undermine respect for the law laid down by the High Court and impair its constitutional authority and dignity but also undermine respect for the entire administration of justice.
19. It may further be emphasised that it is not within the province of the subordinate authority to be critical of a superior court to which they are subordinate. It that were to be allowed the administration of justice cannot function smoothly. If the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority disregards the decision of the High Court under which it functions the value of the precedent and respect for the High Court's pronouncement is greatly jeopardised to the detriment of the dignity and efficiency of the administration of justice. The aim of true justice is to uphold the rule of law. If the subordinate authority contravenes this principle by being indisciplined with no regard to the superior court and its directions or decisions it cannot be efficient and relied upon for the maintenance of the rule of law. The High Court, as indicated herein before, occupies the highest position in the hierarchy of courts in a State. It is incumbent, therefore, on all persons and authorities within its jurisdiction to respect its orders. The respondent-authority, in the present case, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, has no liberty to criticise the decision of the High Court to which it is subordinate and its better wisdom must yield to the higher wisdom of the Court above and that is the strength of the hiererchial juridical system. The State as well as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority having allowed the decision of this Court, to which a reference has been made above, to attain finality, there could be absolutely no justification for embarking upon an exercise to find out ways and means to get over the decision of this Court on a consideration of certain aspects which according to the subordinate authority could be said to have a bearing on the point in issue when this authority having full opportunity did not care to bring them to the notice of the superior court at the time when its decisions were rendered. Once the decision of the higher court in question attained finality every aspect having bearing on the controversy will be deemed to have been considered and any course of action not in accord with the final decision of this Court tantamounts to indiscipline and wilful disregard of the decision which is not permissible. If it is so done, the action of the subordinate authority, in common parlance will be an act of insubordination and in law it will amount to contempt of court and it is liable to be dealt with for the same.
20. In the present case what I find is that in all the four cases in which decisions of this Court referred to hereinabove, had been rendered, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the respondent No. 1 was a party and had been heard through the learned Standing Counsel representing this authority. Nothing has been brought to my notice which may lead to an inference that the State or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, respondent No. 1 ever took any step to get the aforesaid judgments/orders passed by this Court recalled, set aside or modified. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the respondent No. 1 to proceed in accordance with the directions issued by this Court and it was not open to it to take a course of action other than that which was found to be appropriate and justified as indicated in the latest decision of this Court referred to hereinabove. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, therefore, should have with grace adopted a course of action which was in accord with the directions issued by this Court to which a reference has already been made above. The decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, respondent No. I referred to in the impugned order, in the face of the finality of the decisions of this Court referred to herein before, really betrays an indiscipline and amounts to showing a discourtesy to a superior court besides wilful disregard and disobedience which may result involvement in the, proceedings for contempt. It may be emphasised that any order or decision of this Court so long as it continues to be in force, specially when it has been passed after hearing the authority concerned should strictly be complied with both in letter and spirit by the said authority. I am clearly of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order stands vitiated in law on account of having been passed in an improper exercise of the jurisdiction vesting in the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1.
21. In view of the conclusion indicated hereinbefore this Court expresses its displeasure in the matter and adopting a lenient view no further action is taken for the present trusting that the respondent No. 1 shall ensure the non-recurrence of an action as impugned in the present case.
22. In the result the writ petition succeeds in part, and a mandamus is issued requiring the respondent No. 1 to finally decide the petitioner's revision No. 1248/93-94 pending before it within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it with a direction that during the aforesaid period the further proceedings for the recovery of the amount in dispute shall remain stayed provided the petitioner furnishes within two weeks of this order, adequate security other than cash or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the respondent No. 2 for the payment of the aforesaid amount in the event of the dismissal of the revision referred to above.
22A. The Registrar of this Court is directed to send a copy of this judgment to Sri A. U. Khan, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad at the earliest.
23. Order accordingly.