1 WA No.627 of 2025 2025:CGHC:42899-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 627 of 2025 Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited A Company Registered Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At Bakhtawar, 14th Floor, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 And Its Cement Works At Sonadih, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Commercial Tax Department, DKS Bhavan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Of Stamp And District Registrar, Raipur Chhattisgarh Having His Address At Collectorate Building, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Tata Iron And Steel Company Limited A Company Formed And Registered Under The Provisions Of The Indian Companies Act. 1882 And Having Its Registered Office At 24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400001. 4 - Mr. F.L. Kripal, Deputy Inspector General Of Registration, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, D K S Bhawan, Raipur C.G. 2 WA No.627 of 2025 5 - Mr. Ramkishore Sahay S/o Late Shri Laxminaryan Sinha, Indian Inhabitant Haivng My Office At Sonadih, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.08.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No. 320 of 2002, by which, the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell as projected by the appellant/writ petitioner in WP No. 320 of 2002 is that (A) The Respondent No. 3 owned a Cement Plant at Sonadih, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (the then Raipur District) (C.G.) and agreed to transfer the said Cement Plant of Sonadih to the Petitioner No. 1, Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited, District-Raipur, CG. The Petitioner No. 1 decided to purchase the said Cement Plant under the terms and 3 WA No.627 of 2025 conditions settled between them. It was agreed by the parties that the immovable properties would be transferred by a deed of conveyance under the provisions of the relevant law. Respondent No. 3 made an application in Form 34A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act, 1961’), for approval as required under Section 230A of the Act, 1961. In the said Form No. 34A, cost of the property was mentioned as Rs. 44,45,78,549/- and value of assets which was to be transferred through the deed of conveyance was mentioned as Rs. 36,11,15,305/-. Thereafter, On 14-09-1999, Respondent No. 3 wrote a letter to the District Registrar, Raipur, to provide sufficient stamp duty in the franking machine so that it may be put in the conveyance deed instead of annexing the non-judicial stamp. (B). The certificate issued under Section 230A of the Act, 1961 dated 10-08-1999 was sent to the District Registrar/Collector of Stamps, Raipur, vide covering memo dated 29-09-1999, which was received by the Deputy Registrar on 01-10-1999. It is submitted that Respondent No. 2 constituted a committee of 2 members for the assessment of the market value of the property, which was to be transferred through the deed of conveyance. Respondent No. 3 has also handed over the details of the properties to 4 WA No.627 of 2025 Respondent No. 2. The officers of Respondent No. 2 visited the spot; they have independently assessed the market value of the properties based on guideline issued for the determination of market value and came to conclusion that market value of the property was Rs. 28,81,27,807/- and including the value of the constructed area which was Rs. 20,43,07,367/-, and open area was Rs.8,38,20,440/-. Since there was a dispute with respect to the valuation of the property between Respondent No. 2 and 3, the sub-registrar issued an adjudication on 15-10-1999 that market value of the property which was to be transferred was Rs. 28,81,27,807/- and therefore, the requisite stamp duty was Rs. 3,20,48,985/- and the registration fee was leviable as Rs. 28,89,169/-. (C). On 25-10-1999, the said amount of Rs. 3,20,48,985/- towards stamp duty and Rs. 28,89,169/- towards registration fee was transferred to the Respondent/State through treasury challan dated 25-10-1999. Thereafter, the deed of conveyance was executed between the parties on 01-11- 1999 and put up before the sub-registrar for its registration, and it was registered on the same day. (D) On 17-10-2001, Petitioner No. 1 received a notice from Respondent No. 2 with the averment that the actual consideration of Rs. 764 Crores was paid, whereas the 5 WA No.627 of 2025 conveyance deed reflects the transaction of Rs. 36.11 Crores. It was also informed through the notice that an inquiry was initiated vide case No. 13/B-105/2000-2001 before Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1 was called upon there to file their reply. Petitioner No. 1 appeared in the proceeding before Respondent No. 2 on 29-10-2001, and the case was adjourned for 12-11-2001. The said enquiry was initiated on the basis of a newspaper report. On 12-11-2001, the petitioner No. 1 made an application for inspection and copies of the documents; however, the case was further adjourned for 14-12-2001. (E) On 11-12-2001, another letter was received by Petitioner No. 1 from Respondent No. 2 calling upon to produce the Business Transfer Agreement dated 09-03-1999 and a copy of the agreement dated 06-07-1999. In the enquiry proceeding before Respondent No. 2, Petitioner No. 1 raised an objection regarding jurisdiction to entertain the case and then the case was adjourned for 16-01-2002. On 15-01- 2002, Respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to Petitioner No. 1 that the enquiry proceeding was started under Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, on the basis of the news publication of the daily newspaper “Deshbandhu”, dated 26- 05-2001, and cognizance was taken by the Inspector General 6 WA No.627 of 2025 (Stamp), Chhattisgarh Government, Raipur, and again called upon to produce the Business Transfer Agreement on 16-01- 2002. On that day, the proceeding of the case was adjourned for 28-01-2002. (F) Another letter was issued to Petitioner No. 1 on 30-01- 2002 to co-operate with the enquiry proceeding and to submit the required documents on or before 13-02-2002. In reply to the letter dated 30-01-2002, Petitioner No. 1, through its reply dated 01-02-2002, stated that the Sub-Registrar has already adjudicated the payable stamp duty on the conveyance deed and the proceeding initiated under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, ‘Stamp Act’), is without jurisdiction, the provisions of M.P. Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments Rules, 1975 is not applicable and neither the documents has been made available for its inspection nor the copy of the same has been supplied. Further, Respondent No. 2 can call only the instrument that is to be examined, i.e. the conveyance deed, which is already there with Respondent No. 2. 3. In the order under challenge after considering all the aspects of the matter in detail e.g. with regard to maintainability on the ground that the deed of convenience was registered prior to formation of the State of Chhattisgarh i.e. on 1-11-1999, exercise 7 WA No.627 of 2025 of suo motu power, etc. the learned Single Judge has observed that the preliminary objection of maintainability could not be adjudicated holding that the Chhattisgarh State can initiate the proceedings for recovery of the deficit stamp duty as required in the instrument, which has been registered on 1-11-1999. There is no requirement to first obtain permission from the Central Government for the initiation of the proceeding for the recovery of the deficit stamp duty in the subject instrument. The residuary provision of Section 54 of the Act of 2000 is also not applicable in the case for the reason that there are specific provisions in Section 40 of the Act of 2000 regarding the territories and rights and liabilities regarding the right to recover the arrears of taxes and duty on the property. Further, learned Single Judge has clarified that the deed of conveyance is registered on 01-11-1999, and the proceeding was initiated on 17-10-2001, as per Section 47-A (3) of the Stamp Act, the Collector may initiate the proceeding for recovery of deficit stamp duty on the instrument either on suo motu or on reference made to him. The proceeding is not time-barred and is initiated within 5 years of the date of registration of the instrument. 4. With regard to exercise of suo motu power is concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that the proceeding is not a Suo- motu proceeding and was initiated on the behest of the IG of 8 WA No.627 of 2025 Stamps or under some political pressure, and the enquiry has already been done, as the property has already been valued and reports have been called, and thus re-enquiry cannot be done. In the case, on a complaint being made, the state government directed for an enquiry in the matter and the then District Registrar, Raipur, was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the order dated 19-11-2001. Thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of observing thus from para 45 to 51 : 45. In the present case, the Collector of Stamp has not finally adjudicated the issue and it is pending for its order. The petitioner company has duly participated in the proceeding before the Collector of Stamp and contested the case on merits. Any adjudication by the Collector of Stamp is liable to be challenged in the first and second appeal. Therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice is being caused to the petitioners at this stage, by initiating the enquiry proceeding for determination of market value of the property of the instrument. 46. Whether, the proceeding before the Collector of Stamps was initiated suo motu or on the instance of the question raised in the assembly or through any newspaper clipping, whether the Registrar or Sub-registrar have 9 WA No.627 of 2025 already enquired the matter and determine the market value of the property of the instrument, their competency to hold enquiry for determination of market value of the property of the instruments and their consideration, are the disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition. From perusal of the document Annexure P-8, it also reflects that the sub-Registrar has determine the market value of the property as Rs.28,81,27,807/- which is self served declaration submitted by the petitioner before the sub-registrar. In the said document, it is clearly mentioned that there may be variation of the value of the property after its due spot verification and the deficit amount of stamp duty and registration fee is liable to be recovered. 47. Having regard to the distinct concepts of maintainability and entertainability, there is no doubt that the instant writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issue herein is, thus, whether this writ petition should be entertained or not in the backdrop of the obtaining fact situation. After making a survey of a large number of precedents especially in revenue/tax matters, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Commissioner of Income Tax and 10 WA No.627 of 2025 others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal , [2014] 1 SCC 603 , has observed as under:- “11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.” 48. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.S. Venkatraman and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras AIR 1966 SC 1089 has held that though Article 226 of the 11 WA No.627 of 2025 Constitution of India confers very wide power in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice or the procedure required for a decision has not been adopted. 49. In case of M/s South Indian Bank Limited and others Vs Naveen Mathew Philip and another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 15, has observed that : “Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural 12 WA No.627 of 2025 justice, the proposition laid down in Than singh Nathmal v. Supt. of Taxes [AIR 1964 SC 1419], Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433: 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.” 50. Thus, it can be said that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for the redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 13 WA No.627 of 2025 51. In the light of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, we find that there is no reason to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at this intermediate stage when the proceedings initiated by the Collector of Stamp, Raipur, are yet to be concluded by a statutory authority. The petitioners have already participated in the proceeding till the last and the case is closed for passing of the orders. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue their case before the Collector of Stamps, Raipur, in Case No. 13/B-105/2000-01, which is kept in abeyance there till the further direction of this court in the present writ petition. 5. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/State reiterating the same plea challenging the order dated 4.04.2025 passed in WP No. 320 of 2022 praying for quashing the impugned proceedings initiated under Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, being without jurisdiction. 6. (a) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/ writ petitioner submits that the proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities are without jurisdiction. The deed of conveyance/sale deed was executed on 01-11-1999, and at that time, all the requisite stamp duty was paid by the petitioner/ appellant, and the 14 WA No.627 of 2025 deed was registered. The entire transaction was completed before the re-organization of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. The proceeding was closed after the completion of the transaction and registration of the document. No proceeding was pending at the time of the re-organization of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The State of Chhattisgarh could not initiate the proceeding, which was already closed prior to the re-organization of the State. The State was bifurcated in the year 2000, and no action was taken till 2001. The deed was admittedly transferred and executed in the erstwhile state of Madhya Pradesh. After bifurcation, though the authorities remained the same, they did not initiate any proceeding Suo-motu or in any capacity and only after publication of the news item in the daily newspaper, contending about the irregularities in the said registration of the sale deed/conveyance deed. On the basis of that news item, the Inspector General of Stamps, and the question raised in the assembly, the Minister of Commerce, State of Chhattisgarh, answered that the enquiry was initiated. Simultaneously, a letter was issued by the Collector of Stamps. At the time of registration, both companies were required to make a declaration under Section 230-A of the Income Tax Act as to the valuation of the property. On 01-11-1999, the petitioners came to the authority saying that they wanted to execute the deed and made the statement under Section 230-A of the Income Tax Act, 15 WA No.627 of 2025 and asked for the requisite stamp duty on the instrument so that they could pay the same in the instrument. On the basis of their letter, a two-member committee was sent on the spot and, after due verification of the spot, submitted a report before the Registering Authority that the value of the property is about INR 28,81,27,807/-. A note was also put in the said report that if any deficiency is found, the same can be leviable and valued at INR 36,11,15,305/- and paid the stamp duty of INR 3,20,48,985/- and registration fee of INR 28,89,169/-. There was a committee formed that again made an enquiry, including the Collector of Stamps himself. In the second enquiry, the value of the property was put at about 30 crores. Another report was also there with respect to assembly questions from 8 members, and the said enquiry report also shows that the value of the property was about Rs. 30 Crores. During the pendency of the present petition, another enquiry was conducted by Mr. Kripal, who was at that time the Collector of Stamp and enquired about the matter as IG of Stamp, and found the value of property is about Rs. 174 Crores, which comes through a private Chartered Accountant on 19-02- 2003. (b) The appellant/petitioner herein are challenging the order on the grounds that the sale deed was registered in the year 1999, and at that time, the erstwhile state of Madhya Pradesh existed. The 16 WA No.627 of 2025 entire revenue and the entire charges were from Madhya Pradesh. None of the officers up till 2001 initiated any action for payment of lesser stamp duty. The proceeding was initiated by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 does not give any power to initiate any proceeding by the authority in Chhattisgarh for the deed which has been registered in the existence of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The state of Chhattisgarh does not have any jurisdiction. At the time of bifurcation of the state, the revenue paid by the appellant has been taken into consideration in the bifurcation of the assets and liabilities and consumed by the respective states. Chapter 5 of the Reorganization Act, 2000 speaks that the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India referred to in clause (2) of Article 151 relating to the account of Madhya Pradesh in respect to any period prior to the appointed day shall be submitted to the Governor of each successor state. (c) While referring to page 52-A of the paper book (Annexure P-8) of the writ petition, he would submit that the said letter was issued by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax to whom they submitted their certificate under Section 230-A of the Income Tax Act, and requested for valuation of the property. Along with their declaration under Section 230-A of the IT Act, they have disclosed their entire assets, i.e. houses, administrative buildings, plants, cooling 17 WA No.627 of 2025 towers, etc. Section 31 of the Stamp Act provides for the adjudication of proper stamps at the time of registration of a deed. In compliance with the provisions of Section 31 of the Stamp Act, they have submitted their declaration, and the sub-registrar has also verified the same and assessed the market value of the property. The authorities have duly verified on the spot and, after its verification, assessed the value of the property and put its valuation in the said document. Thereafter, the sale deed/conveyance was registered. At the time of registration of the deed, the registering authority had not taken any cognizance that the instrument is undervalued. As per Section 47-A (3), there is nothing on record to show that the collector had called for the instrument to satisfy himself about the correctness of the value put in the instrument. As per Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, the sub- Registrar has not referred the matter to the Collector of Stamps despite the fact that the Collector has taken cognizance Suo-motu on the basis of the newspaper. The IG of Stamp, on 26-05-2001, called for a report from the District Registrar with respect to a newspaper clipping published on 26-05-2001 in the daily “Deshbandhu” newspaper. On the same day, the action is taken by the IG of Stamps. The Accountant General of Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh has written a letter to the Chief Secretary of the State of Chhattisgarh, dated 23-06-2001, with respect to 18 WA No.627 of 2025 submission of reply of audit objection, which has been forwarded to the IG of Stamp, District Registrar and Sub-Registrar, Raipur, but no reply was submitted by them. In the said letter dated 23-06- 2001, details of the property and valuation were shown, in which also the value of the property was Rs. 37.83 Crores. (d) An Assembly question was also raised on 22-11-2001, and in reply to it, an enquiry was already ordered, but the same was ordered in November 2001. The enquiry should have been initiated from that moment, but in the present case, on the letter written by the IG of Stamps, the proceeding was initiated. The appellant/ writ petitioner has paid Rs. 6 Crore more than the value put by the authorities, and no action was taken against them. He would also submit that on 16-07-2001, the sub-registrar issued a letter to the District Registrar that the valuation of the property put in the instrument was not correct and undervalued. The valuation of the property was done by their own authorities. On 24-11-2001, the registering officers have made a joint letter to the Hon’ble Minister of Commerce, State of Chhattisgarh, for reconsideration of the declaration made in the assembly on 23-11-2001. In the said letter, the registrar has made a statement that after verification of the value of the property, the deed was registered. This letter was given by the authorities who are involved in the entire process of registration of the deed and enquiring about the 19 WA No.627 of 2025 value of the property. On one side, Mr. F.L. Kripal has submitted his representation that all the act has been done bona fide and a correct valuation was put in the deed, but on the other side, on 17- 10-2001, he issued a notice for recovery of deficit stamp duty on the instrument. In the said notice dated 17-10-2001, he stated that they came to know that the transaction was made for the total value of Rs. 764 Crores, whereas the deed has been registered only for Rs. 36 Crores. There is no source of his knowledge, nor any document in their possession. On 23-11-2001, they wrote that the correct valuation was put in the said deed. Therefore, the entire action taken by the state government cannot be considered to be under Section 47-A (3) of the Act of 1899. Rule 4 of the Rules 1975 provided that a reference under sub-section 1 of Section 47-A of the Act of the registering authority shall be accompanied by a statement in Form-A. On receipt of reference from the registering officer or where the Collector proposed to take action Suo-motu under sub-section 3 of Section 47-A of the Act of 1899, he shall issue a notice in Form-2 or 3 as the case may be to every person by whom and in whose favour the transaction was made. In the present case, the respondent no. 3 has not been noticed. There is nothing to disbelieve the initial report of the authority with respect to the valuation of the property. 20 WA No.627 of 2025 7. (i) Per contra, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the appellant has challenged the proceeding on three counts i.e. (1) the State of Chhattisgarh has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding as the transaction has already been completed prior to 01.11.2000, (2) the proceeding is not the Suo- motu proceeding and initiated on the behest of IG of Stamp or under some political pressure and (3) further that the enquiry has already been done as the property has already been valued and reports have been called and thus re-enquiry cannot be done. He would submit that an assembly question was raised on 22-11- 2001, and prior to that, the impugned notice with respect to the valuation of the property and the deficiency of stamp duty in the instrument was already issued on 17-10-2001. The appellant has challenged two notices dated 17-10-2001 and 11-12-2001 by which the appellant was directed to submit Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) dated 09-03-1999 and agreement dated 06-07- 1999 executed between the appellant and the respondent No. 3. The notice was issued on 17-10-2001 on the basis of audit objection which reflects from the reference of the notice dated 17- 10-2001. After execution of the conveyance deed, it was produced before the Sub-registrar for its registration, the Sub-registrar valued the property at the time of registration. The sub-registrar 21 WA No.627 of 2025 has given the valuation detail and a note was made in it by the sub-registrar and assessing value of the property, the stamp duty payable and the total registration fee. In the note, it is mentioned that after spot verification or otherwise, there may be some difference in the market value of the property, and the said difference in stamp duty and registration fee will be payable accordingly. Therefore, the stamp duty paid by the appellant in said conveyance deed was not final. (ii) Learned counsel would also submit that the Stamp Act is enacted to prevent revenue loss to the state, and it is related to fiscal matters. Section 31 of the Stamp Act provides for the adjudication of the stamp. In the present case, there is no adjudication by the Collector of Stamps. The deed was registered by the sub-registrar under the Registration Act, but the Collector of Stamps did not have any occasion to adjudicate the matter because the sub-registrar had not referred the matter to him for his adjudication. As per Section 47-A, which was inserted by State Amendment in the year 1975, and as per Section 47-A (3) of the Stamp Act, the collector may Suo-motu within 5 years from the date of registration of the instrument, he can open the case for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of instrument, he may determine the value of the property. The proceeding initiated 22 WA No.627 of 2025 by the Collector of Stamps can be considered a Suo-motu proceeding. In the present case, on the basis of the audit objection, the Collector was primarily satisfied that there is an undervaluation of the deed. The main purpose of initiating the enquiry is to determine the correct value of the property under the instrument. In the enquiry, there may be a report in their favour or against them. For the enquiry, there is a rule of 1975 which provides the entire procedure of the enquiry. In the proceeding, the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity to furnish the documents, but they did not furnish the same. After the first notice on 17-10-2001, the petitioners submitted their reply on merits before the Collector of Stamps in the proceeding and appeared and participated on various dates in the proceeding. When they were directed to furnish the documents, they approached this court by way of this petition. (iii) During the midst of the proceeding before the Collector of Stamps, the learned counsel appearing for the company has clearly admitted that there is no adjudication by the Collector of Stamps under Section 31. Once the Collector of stamps initiate the proceeding, it is an enquiry under Section 47-A(3). The appellant has appeared before the authority, submitted their defence and cross-examined the witnesses and produced their witnesses, and thereafter they filed the present petition, and thus, 23 WA No.627 of 2025 the present petition is premature as there is no adjudication by the Collector of Stamp. The appellant is challenging the initiation of the enquiry proceeding. Since the Hon’ble Court has passed the interim order that the proceeding may go on, but no final order shall be passed, the proceeding was closed at the final stage by the Collector of Stamps. (iv) According to the learned counsel, the Collector of Stamps has not initiated the proceeding on the basis of any news published in the newspaper, but has initiated the proceeding on the basis of an audit objection. Section 47-A(4) provides the specific forum of appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Stamps, and the appellant has an efficacious remedy of appeal if any order is passed against them. Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1975 prescribed the procedure of enquiry. The enquiry is still pending. The document dated 22-02-2002 reflects that the State government had already taken action against the appellant on 19- 11-2001, whereas the assembly question was raised on 22-11- 2001. The notice was issued on 17-10-2001, which is much prior to the date of the assembly question. The letter dated 22-02-2002 was issued with respect to the departmental enquiry initiated against Mr. S.K. Gadhewal, which is reflected from the letter itself and is on the administrative side. 24 WA No.627 of 2025 (v) It is also submitted that the State of Chhattisgarh has the jurisdiction to enquire into the matter. The deed of conveyance was registered on 01-11-1999, the entire property is situated within the territory of the State of Chhattisgarh, i.e. District Raipur (new district Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara). Section 47-A (3) provides that within 5 years of the registration of the deed, the case can be opened. The territorial jurisdiction comes to the Collector of Stamps, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). The division of state was on the basis of assets whatever was existed there at that time, but here, the enquiry was initiated about undervaluation of the stamp duty, and liability would only come after the adjudication for which the enquiry is pending. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing off the petition wherein it has been categorically observed that the subject land and property belong to the Raipur District and as per Section 3 of the Act of 2000, it comes under the Chhattisgarh State, and all the rights and liabilities to recover taxes and duty on the property belongs to the Chhattisgarh State which is the successor state as 25 WA No.627 of 2025 provided under 2(j) of the Act of 2000. Therefore, the Chhattisgarh State can initiate the proceedings for recovery of the deficit stamp duty as required in the instrument, which has been registered on 01-11-1999. There is no requirement to first obtain permission from the Central Government for the initiation of the proceeding for the recovery of the deficit stamp duty in the subject instrument. The residuary provision of Section 54 of the Act of 2000 is also not applicable in the case for the reason that there are specific provisions in Section 40 of the Act of 2000 regarding the territories and rights and liabilities regarding the right to recover the arrears of taxes and duty on the property. 10. Further, the deed of conveyance is registered on 01-11-1999, and the proceeding was initiated on 17-10-2001, as per Section 47-A (3) of the Stamp Act, the Collector may initiate the proceeding for recovery of deficit stamp duty on the instrument either on suo motu or on reference made to him. The proceeding is not time- barred and is initiated within 5 years of the date of registration of the instrument. The learned single Judge has categorically observed that there is no reason to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at this intermediate stage when the proceedings initiated by the Collector of Stamp, Raipur, are yet to be concluded by a statutory authority. The petitioner/ appellant 26 WA No.627 of 2025 has already participated in the proceeding till the last and the case is closed for passing of the orders. The appellant is at liberty to pursue the case before the Collector of Stamps, Raipur, in Case No.13/B-105/2000-01, which is kept in abeyance there till the further direction of this court in the present writ petition. 11. At this juncture, it is noteworthy to mention here that when for the first time the matter was listed before this Court in the year 2002 i.e. on 15-2-2002 the counsel appearing for the appellant made a categorical submission that the petitioner/ appellant herein would cooperate in the enquiry and the said submission has duly been taken on record and thereafter, the respondent No.2 was directed to complete the enquiry, but not to pass any order till the disposal of the writ petition. 12. For the sake of convenience, the interim order dated 15.02.2002 is quoted below:- 15.02.2002 Heard Shri Dushyant Dave, Sr. Counsel with Shri V.K. Munshi & Shri B.P.Sharma, counsel for the petitioners and Dr. N.K. Shukla, Addl. Adv. General for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 has initiated an enquiry under 27 WA No.627 of 2025 Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act as amended by the State of M.P. and prays for stay of further proceedings in the said enquiry till the disposal of the writ petition. The enquiry initiated by respondent No.2 to go on. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would co-operate in the enquiry.His submission is placed on record. Respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiry, but not to pass any order till the disposal of the writ petition, Post for further hearing after eight weeks. 13. Since, the petitioner has stated before this court on the very first day of hearing that they would cooperate in the enquiry it means that the petitioner has accepted the jurisdiction and authority of Collector of Stamps, hence the subsequent stand taken by petitioner questioning the jurisdiction of the concerned Collector of Stamps is not permissible under the law. 14. After appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge categorically observed that since the petitioner/appellant has already participated in the proceedings till the last and the case is closed for passing of the orders, the appellant would be at liberty to pursue the case before the 28 WA No.627 of 2025 Collector of Stamps, Raipur, in case No.13/B-105/2000-01, which is kept in abeyance there till the further direction of this Court in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge while vacating the interim order directed the Collector of Stamps to decide the matter, in accordance with law and on its own merits, without being influenced by any of observations made in the order impugned. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court. 15. In the result, the writ appeal sans merit is dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, the appellant herein is at liberty to pursue its case as has been ordered by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/Gowri KONDAPALLI GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by KONDAPALLI GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.08.26 14:36:27 +0530