Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record.
By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned order dated 16th March, 2020 passed by the respondent No.2 condoning delay in filing revision against the order of the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) dated 18th June, 2009, whereunder it has been held that the petitioner is not liable to pay any further stamp as there is no deficiency in the payment of stamp duty.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the revision though was time barred but the respondent No.- 2 without issuing any notice condoned the delay in filing the revision petition under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
It is argued that no revision is competent unless the delay is condoned and, therefore, there vests right with the contesting respondents to question the delay by moving an objection. It is, therefore, argued that it is the judicial duty cast upon the respondent No.- 2 that while exercising quasi judicial/ judicial power to issue notice first before condoning the delay, on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon an order of this Court passed in Nikhil Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ- C No.- 10735 of 2020 in which in identical facts and circumstances petition has been allowed and the order passed in revision condoning delay in filing the same has been set aside and the petitioner has been provided ample opportunity of hearing before orders are passed afresh on miscellaneous application dealing condonation of delay in filing revision petition.
Learned Standing Counsel though has sought to defend the order on the ground that it is only an order condoning the delay and no order on merit but in the considered opinion of the Court, the order on merit includes the delay also as it duly creates right in favour of a decree holder and, therefore, the respondent No.- 2 was bound in law to at least issue notices first before condoning the delay in filing the revision and it was after recording satisfaction of the service of notice that such a condonation application could have been disposed of.
In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 16th March, 2020 passed in Revision No.- C202001000000476 of 2020 is hereby quashed.
Since the petitioner has challenged the order condoning delay before this Court, he shall be taken to have complete notice of the pending application and revision before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Commissioner Agra, Division Agra and the petitioner is, accordingly, directed to file objection to delay condonation application within a period of two weeks from today and in the event if such application is filed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Commissioner concerned, he shall decide first the delay condonation application by giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties before proceeding further in the matter, but of course, in accordance with law.
The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official is further directed to verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 Atmesh