NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order reserved on 18.07.2024 Order delivered on 04.04.2025 WP No. 320 of 2002 1 - 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 2 - Mr. Ramkishore Sahay S/o Late Shri Laxminaryan Sinha, Indian Inhabitant Haivng My Office At Sonadih, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(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, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate along with Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Shri Pankaj Singh and Shri Harsh Dave, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy AG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.06.13 10:19:09 +0530 Wp 320 of 2002 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal CAV Order 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition against the proceeding initiated by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for revaluation of the assets of Petitioner No. 1 through the letters dated 17-10-2001, 11-12-2001, 15-01-2002 and 30-01-2002. Initially the petitioners have claimed the following reliefs:- a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ or prohibitions or a writ in a nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India restraining the respondents Nos.1 and 2 from initiating, proceeding with or taking any steps in respect of the revaluation of the properties that were the subject matter of the deed of Conveyance dated 1st November, 1999 and the assessment/reassessment of stamp duty in respect of the said conveyance. b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the case pertaining to the 2nd respondent’s said orders/directives dated 17th October, 2001 and other orders/directives issued pursuant thereto after examining the legality and propriety thereof be pleased to quash or set aside the same. c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents, ordering and directing them to :- Wp 320 of 2002 3 i. forthwith withdraw and/or cancel the said orders/directives dated 17th October, 2001 and other orders/directives issued pursuant thereto; ii. forthwith forbear from taking any steps pursuant to or in implementation of the said orders/directives dated 17th October, 2001, and other orders/directives issued pursuant thereto; iii. forthwith forbear from taking any steps with regard to the revaluation of properties for the assessment/reassessment of stamp duty in respect of the said deed of Conveyance dated 1st November, 1999. d) For costs of this writ petition including Advocate’s fees. e) For such further and other relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. 2. On 08-02-2002, the petitioners filed the instant petition and subsequently, the relief column has been amended and after its amendment, they claimed the following reliefs:- (a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ or prohibitions or a writ in a nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India restraining the respondents Nos.1 and 2 from initiating, proceeding with or taking any steps in respect of the revaluation of the properties that were the subject matter of the deed of Conveyances dated 1st November, 1999 and the assessment/reassessment of stamp duty in respect of the said conveyance. Wp 320 of 2002 4 (b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the case pertaining to the 2nd respondent’s said orders/directives issued pursuant thereto after examining the legality and propriety thereof to quash or set aside the same. (c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents, ordering and directing them to :- i. forthwith withdraw and/or cancel the said orders/directives dated 17th October, 2001 and other orders/directives issued pursuant thereto; ii. forthwith forbear from taking any steps pursuant to or in implementation of the said orders/directives dated 17th October, 2001, and other orders/directives issued pursuant thereto; iii. forthwith forbear from taking any steps with regard to the revaluation of properties for the assessment/reassessment of stamp duty in respect of the said deed of Conveyance dated 1st November, 1999. (c-1) to issue a writ of and/ or in the nature of certiorari quashing the enquiry in case No.13-B/105/2000-01 registered against the petitioners by the respondent No.2. (d) For costs of this writ petition including Advocate’s fees. (e) For such further and other relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. Wp 320 of 2002 5 3. The facts of the case in brief are that 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 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/-. 4. 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. 5. 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 Wp 320 of 2002 6 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 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/-. 6. 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. 7. 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 conveyance deed reflects the transaction of Rs. 36.11 Crores. It was also informed through the notice that an inquiry was Wp 320 of 2002 7 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. 8. 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 (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. 9. Another letter was issued to Petitioner No. 1 on 30-01-2002 to co- operate with the enquiry proceeding and to submit the required Wp 320 of 2002 8 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. 10. In the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 15-02-2002 which is reproduced hereunder:- “learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 2 has initiated an enquiry under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh 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.” 11. An objection was also raised on 03-10-2002 by the respondents/State regarding the maintainability of the writ petition but for Wp 320 of 2002 9 one reason or the other, the proceeding of the writ petition was adjourned and the objection could not be decided. 12. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their return in which it is submitted that the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 17-10-2001 passed by the Collector of Stamps under Section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act, whereby a direction for enquiry with respect to the correctness of the market value of the property in question in the conveyance deed was given. The writ petition is filed on the ground that the sub-registrar has already adjudicated the leviable stamp duty and registration fees in the deed and has duly registered the same. Respondent No. 2 has already submitted his report regarding the valuation of the property to the State Government, and the initiation of the enquiry proceeding is illegal. 13. The preliminary submissions have also been made in return that the Collector may Suo motu, within five years from the date of registration of any instrument, not already referred to him under sub-section (1) of the Stamp Act, call for and examine the instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property and if, after such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set-forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value and the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. As per Section 31 of the Stamp Act, when an instrument is Wp 320 of 2002 10 brought before the Collector, the Collector may require to be furnished with an abstract of the instrument and also with other evidence as he may deem necessary to prove the chargeability of the instrument with the amount of the duty chargeable. 14. It is also replied by the State that after registration of the case under Section 47-A (3) of the Stamp Act against the petitioners for determination of the market value of the property under transfer, the proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioners under the provisions of the Stamp Act, however, no order could be passed in view of the interim order dated 15-02-2002 passed in the present writ petition. Since no order is passed in the enquiry proceeding, the present petition is not maintainable, and the same is premature. 15. It is also the reply of the State that as per Section 47-A (5) of the Stamp Act, an appeal is provided against the order passed by the Collector of Stamps before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Therefore, the petitioners have an alternative remedy to file an appeal if any adverse order is passed against them. It is also submitted that Section 31 (1) of the Stamp Act clearly indicates that when any instrument, whether executed or not, and whether previously stamped or not, is brought to the Collector, the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of that officer as to the duty if any, chargeable, the Collector shall determine the duty with which the instrument is chargeable. Sub-section 2 of Section 31 of the Stamp Act provides the procedure as to how the Wp 320 of 2002 11 Collector will adjudicate the issue. No application was ever made to the Collector of Stamp for adjudication of the dispute of proper stamp duty, and no document was brought before the Collector of Stamp. Therefore, there is no adjudication by the Collector and the proceeding initiated under Section 47-A (3) is not barred. No certificate under Section 32 of the Stamp Act has been issued. 16. It is further submitted that the Registrars in the State of Chhattisgarh appointed under Section 6 of the Registration Act for the purposes of the Stamp Act, have been declared as “Collector” as defined under Section 2(9) of the Act of 1899, by the notification dated 27-11- 1981. The document Annexure P-8 is issued by the Sub-Registrar, tendering information as sought by the petitioners as provided in Para 59 of the Registration Manual Part-II. It is also averred that no application was ever made to the Collector for adjudication of the proper stamp under Section 31 of the Act of 1899, and no instruments were brought before him. Even no person has applied for the determination of the proper stamp duty on the instrument. Therefore, there is no question of any adjudication by the Collector with respect to the issue of proper stamp duty. No certificate, as provided under Section 32 of the Stamp Act was issued to the concerned party. The adjudication by the Collector followed by a certificate under Section 32 of the Stamp Act to the effect that full duty has been paid on the instrument. There was no adjudication by the Collector under Section 31 of the Stamp Act, and there is no endorsement in terms of Section 32 of the Stamp Act, it cannot be said Wp 320 of 2002 12 that the Collector has adjudicated the issue, hence, there is no bar to proceed under Section 47-A (3) of the Stamp Act. 17. On a complaint being made against the value of the property, the State Government directed for an enquiry, and the District Registrar, Raipur, was appointed as the enquiry officer by the order dated 19-11-2001. In the meantime, the Registrar, Mr. S.K. Gadhewal, was placed under suspension vide order dated 27-11-2001. A preliminary enquiry was also conducted against Mr. S.K. Gadhewal by the order of the State Government, which was conducted by Mr. F.L. Kripal, District Registrar, who submitted his report on 22-02-2002 and 25-02-2002 and based on it, charge-sheet was issued against Mr. S.K. Gadhewal, the then sub-registrar. The valuation of the property was done only for the purposes of departmental enquiry against Mr. S.K. Gadhewal, and it has nothing to do with the proceeding under Section 47-A(3) of the Act of 1899. It is purely an administrative enquiry for furnishing the appointing authority to hold a departmental enquiry against Mr. S.K. Gadhewal. That enquiry was not done under the capacity of Collector of Stamp but has been conducted by the District Registrar in the capacity of an authorised officer by the State Government in the matter of Mr. S.K. Gadhewal. 18. The Collector of Stamp, while exercising the suo motu jurisdiction under Section 47-A (3) of the Stamp Act, registered a Revenue Case No. 13/B-105/2000-2001 to examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the Wp 320 of 2002 13 property shown in the instrument and notice was issued to the party concerned by the order dated 16-07-2001 and directed the petitioners to file their reply. By the order dated 11-12-2001, the Collector of Stamp has also directed the petitioners to submit the Business Transfer Agreement dated 09-03-1999. Despite repeatedly time taken by the petitioners for filing the reply, the same has not been filed till 14-06-2002, and the petitioner submitted that the documents filed by them earlier should be taken as their reply. Thereafter, the evidence of the parties was recorded, and the case was closed for orders; however, the order could not be passed, and the respondents refrained from passing the order because of the pendency of this petition. 19. It is also the stand of the State Government that the erstwhile state of Madhya Pradesh has framed rules providing the procedure for determination of the correct market value of the instrument, which is called as “The Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments Rules, 1975”, which provides procedure on receipt of reference or a proposal to take action suo motu under Section 47-A(3) of the Act of 1899. Sub Rule (2) of Rule (4) of the Rules 1975 provides that where the Collector proposes to take action suo motu, he shall issue a notice in form II or III as the case may be to the person concerned. The specific procedure has been laid down for making an enquiry in sub-rule (3) by the Collector of Stamp to examine the instrument and to find out the correctness of the market value of the property. An appeal lies against the order passed by the Collector under Section 47-A (4) of the Wp 320 of 2002 14 Stamp Act to the Commissioner, and the further appeal lies to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sub-section (5) of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. Thus, Section 47-A of the Stamp Act is complete machinery for the determination of the market value of the instrument in question. Therefore, the Collector of Stamp has rightly taken suo-motu action against the petitioner company and asked them to file reply. 20. It is also submitted that the enquiry conducted by the District Registrar upon the direction of the State Government regarding the valuation of the property in dispute is a departmental enquiry, and Mr. S.K. Gadhewal was placed under suspension and a preliminary enquiry was conducted against him under the law. Mr. F.L. Kripal has conducted the preliminary enquiry as the Officer of the State Government. The preliminary enquiry report is not a part of the enquiry initiated under Section 47-A (3) of the Act of 1899. The petitioners have been duly noticed in the proceeding under Section 47-A (3) of the Stamp Act, and time was granted to them for filing of reply. Their representative have also appeared in the proceeding before the Collector of Stamp, and no prejudice is being caused to the petitioners. Therefore, the assumption of the petitioners that the Collector of Stamp is prejudged is baseless and not correct. The petitioners want to prolong the enquiry proceeding, and no reply has been filed by them. 21. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that the proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities are without Wp 320 of 2002 15 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 petitioners, and the 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, and asked for the Wp 320 of 2002 16 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. 22. The petitioners herein are challenging the petition 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 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 Wp 320 of 2002 17 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 petitioners 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. 23. While referring to page 52-A of the paper book (Annexure P-8) of the petition, he would submit that the said letter was issued by Jt. 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 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 Annexure P-8. Thereafter, the sale deed/conveyance was Wp 320 of 2002 18 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 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. 24. 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 petitioner has paid Rs. 6 Crore more than the value put by the authorities, and no action was Wp 320 of 2002 19 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 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 Wp 320 of 2002 20 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. 25. Per contra, learned counsel for the state would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submit that the petitioners have 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 petitioners have challenged two notices dated 17-10-2001 (Annexure P-13) and 11-12-2001 (Annexure P-14) by which the petitioners were directed to submit Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) dated 09-03-1999 and agreement dated 06-07-1999 executed between the petitioners and the respondent No. 3. The notice was issued Wp 320 of 2002 21 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 has given the valuation detail, which is Ex. P-8, 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 petitioners in said conveyance deed was not final. 26. He 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 Wp 320 of 2002 22 property which is the subject matter of instrument, he may determine the value of the property. The proceeding initiated 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. 27. 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 petitioners have 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, the present petition is premature as there is no adjudication by the Collector of Stamp. The petitioner is challenging the initiation of the Wp 320 of 2002 23 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. 28. He would also submit that 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 petitioner 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 petitioners 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. 29. 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 Wp 320 of 2002 24 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. 30. He would rely upon the following judgments in support of his submission : i. GKN Driveshafts (India) LTD Vs Income Tax Officer and others 2003 (1) SCC 72, ii. State of Orissa and others Vs Mesco Steels Limited and another 2013 (4) SCC 340, iii. Ramesh Chand Bansal and others Vs District Magistrate/Collector Ghaziabad and others 1999 (5) SCC 62, iv. Union of India and another Vs Guwahati Carbon Limited 2012 (11) SCC 651. 31. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records and documents annexed with the petition by the parties. 32. The first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is 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 petitioners, and the deed was registered, the entire transaction was completed before the reorganization of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. The proceeding was closed after the completion of the Wp 320 of 2002 25 transaction and registration of the document. The State of Chhattisgarh could not initiate the proceeding, which was already closed prior to the reorganization of the State. It transpires from the pleading of the writ petition and the documents annexed with it, there is no pleading with respect to the same, and no objection is taken by the petitioner that the proceeding initiated by the respondent authorities is not maintainable on this ground. It is raised first time in the case at the time of the final hearing of the case. Although no pleading or documents are available in the case, yet, the maintainability of the proceeding initiated by the respondent authorities is challenged by the petitioner on the ground of its jurisdiction, the same is to be determined under the facts and circumstances of the case. 33. It is not in dispute that the deed of conveyance was executed and registered on 01-11-1999, and the present proceeding was initiated on 17-10-2001 by the newly born State of Chhattisgarh, which came into existence on 01-11-2000. Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 (in short “Act of 2000”), gives the territories of the Chhattisgarh State, which reads as under:- Section 3- Formation of Chhattisgarh State.- On and from the appointed day, there shall be formed a new State to be known as the State of Chhattisgarh comprising the following territories of the existing State of Madhya Pradesh,namely :-Bastar, Bilaspur, Dantewada, Dhamtari, Durg, Janjgir-Champa, Jashpur,Kanker, Kawardha, Korba, Koria, Mahasamund, Raigarh, Raipur,Rajnandgaon and Surguja districts,and thereupon the said territories shall cease to form part of the existing State of Madhya Pradesh. Wp 320 of 2002 26 34. Section 40 of the Act of 2000 provides that the right to recover the arrears of taxes or duty on property, including arrears of land revenue, shall belong to the successor state in which the property is situated. Section 40 of the Act of 2000 is also reproduced below, which reads as under:- Section 40- Arrears of taxes The right to recover arrears of any tax or duty on property, including arrears of land revenue, shall belong to the successor State in which the property is situated, and the right to recover arrears of any other tax or duty shall belong to the successor State in whose territories the place of assessment of that tax or duty is included on the appointed day. 35. 35. In the present case, 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 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. Wp 320 of 2002 27 36. So far as the other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deed of conveyance was registered, and on the date of initiation of the proceeding for recovery of deficit stamp duty, no dispute was pending, and therefore, Chhattisgarh State cannot initiate the proceeding. It will also not give any assistance to the petitioners to extend any relief on this ground. Section 47-A (3) of the Stamp Act provides that the Collector may suo motu, within five years from the date of registration of any instrument, not already referred to him under sub- section (1), call for and examine the instrument to satisfy himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property. It is necessary to quote the provision of Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which reads as under:- 47A (3)— The Collector may suo motu, within five years from the date of registration of any instrument already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of sat himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of any s instrument and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the mari value of such property has not been truly set-forth in the instrument, he may determine the market valued such property and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (2). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any instrument registered prior to the date of the commencement of the Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1975. Wp 320 of 2002 28 37. As has already been considered in the preceding paragraph, admittedly, in the present case, 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. 38. In the matter of “Hajjin Salma Begum wd/o Shaukat Hussain v. State of M.P. and others”, 2005 SCC Online MP 512, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held in para 8 that:- “8. On going through the impugned order (Annex.P-22) it is gathered that the Collector has passed the impugned order by exercising suo motu powers conferred to it under section 47-A(3) of the Act. On going through this provision it is gathered that the statute has given power to the Collector to exercise suo motu power within five years from the date of registration of any instrument and not referred to under sub-section (1) of section 47-A of the Act. It be seen that sale-deed was registered on 27-1- 1989 and the notice (Annex.P-7) was issued on 10-9-1992. Thus within statutory period of five years suo motu powers were exercised which cannot be said to be arbitrary in nature. There is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence ought to have been recorded in terms of sub-section (3-A) of section 47-A of the Act for the simple reason that sub-section (3-A) was added by amendment which carne into force w.e.f. 1-8-2000 while the impugned order (Annex.P- 22) was passed on 16-4-1993. On that date according to rule 4 a notice was required to be sent to the person against whom an action is proposed Wp 320 of 2002 29 and the inquiry was to be made on the basis of Rule 5 of the rules. There is no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice was not sent in Form No. III. In that context I have seen notice (Annex.P-7) dated 10-9-1992 and I tallied it from Form No. III. By keeping Form No. III and Annexure-P-7 in juxtaposition it can safely be said that notice Annex.P-7 satisfies the requirement of Form No. III. In the notice it has been specifically mentioned that by exercising the powers under section 47-A(3) the case has been registered. Apart from this, how and in what manner the petitioner is prejudiced and merely on the basis of sending a defective notice, how and in what manner the impugned order is liable to be set aside, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision in that regard. Thus, I hold that the notice (Annex.P-7) which was issued to the petitioner by exercising suo motu powers by the Collector, was rightly and validly issued.” 39. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceeding is not a Suo-motu proceeding and was initiated on the behest of the IG of 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. Meanwhile, the Registrar Mr. S. K. Gadhewal was placed under suspension vide order dated 27-11-2001. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by Mr. F.L. Kripal and in course of enquiry, a report was also called from the Collector, Raipur, and he submitted his report on 22-02-2002. The said Wp 320 of 2002 30 preliminary enquiry as to valuation of the property was done by the District Registrar, Raipur, only for the purposes of Departmental Enquiry against Mr. S.K. Gadhewal. It was an independent administrative enquiry, and has nothing to do with the proceeding initiated under Section 47-A (3) of the Stamp Act. The said preliminary enquiry was not done by Respondent No. 2 in the capacity of Collector of Stamps, under the provisions of Stamp Act. 40. The Collector of Stamp, while exercising the suo motu powers, registered a revenue case bearing No. 13/B-105/2000-01, for examination of the instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to correctness of market value of the property shown in the instrument dated 01-11-1999. The notice was issued to the parties on 16-07-2001. On 29-10-2001, they made their appearance before the Collector of Stamps. On 11-12-2001, the petitioners were directed to produce the Business Transfer Agreement dated 09-03-1999 and despite taking time, the same has not been produced by the petitioner company. On 31-01- 2002, the representative of the petitioner’s company examined the minute book and local inspection register of the Sub Registrar and was found no such local inspection has been done by Mr. S.K. Gadhewal and Mr. R.L. Sahu, the then sub-registrar. On 30-05-2002, last opportunity was given to file reply and fixed the next date as 14-06-2002, but no reply was filed by petitioner-1, however, the petitioner submitted that the documents showing their stand earlier be treated as their reply. Thereafter, the evidence of the parties was also recorded. Due to the Wp 320 of 2002 31 interim order passed in the present petition on 15-02-2002 by which the respondents were refrained from passing of final order, the order could not be passed and ultimately, on 25-04-2003, the case was closed for orders which is to be passed after further direction in the present writ petition. The order dated 25-04-2003 has been extracted here below:- izdj.k vkt fy;k x;kA ;g izdj.k fnukad 18-04-03 dks fu;r Fkk] fdUrq mDr fnukad dks ’kklu }kjk xqMQzkbMs dk vodk’k ?kksf"kr fd, tkus ds dkj.k izdj.k ugha fy;k tk ldkA vukosnd ykQktZ bafM;k fyfeVsM dh vksj ls vf/koDrk Jh Ogh0ds0 eqa’kh rFkk Jh fot; Lokeh rFkk fVLdks dh vksj ls vf/koDrk Jh vt; dkSy ,oa Jh ,e0 jkt’ks[kj mifLFkrA dksbZ fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr ughaA ykQktZ bafM;k fyfeVsM dh vksj ls IykaV e’khujh ds laca/k esa ewY;kadudrkZ Jh ,e0lh0 tSu ,.M ,lksaf’k;sV~l }kjk izLrqr ewY;kadu izfrosnu lksukMhg rg0 cykSnkcktkj esa fLFkr lhesaV IykaV dh IykaV e’khujh ds laca/k esa varfje izkjafHkd vkifRr izLrqr dh xbZ tks ekU; fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA izdj.k vkns’kkFkZ can fd;k tkrk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; fcykliqj esa izpfyr fofo/k ;kfpdk dz0 320@2002 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls vkxkeh funsZ’k izkIr gksus ds mijkUr vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tkosxkA 41. Since, the proceeding before the Collector of Stamps was pending and during its pendency, the present writ petition is filed, on 03-10-2002, an objection was raised by the respondents regarding maintainability of the present writ petition and the writ petition was further fixed for hearing on the objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition, but for one or other reason, the proceedings were adjourned and the preliminary objection of maintainability of the writ petition could not be decided. 42. In the proceeding before the Collector of Stamp, the petitioner company had appeared and contested the case. From bare perusal of Section 31 (1) of the Stamp Act, it clearly appears that when any Wp 320 of 2002 32 instrument, whether executed or not, and whether previously stamped or not, is brought to the Collector, and the person bringing it applies to have the opinion as to the duty, if any, with which it is chargeable, and pays the fee of such amount, (not exceeding five rupees and not less than fifty naye paise) as the Collector may in each case direct, the Collector shall determine the duty, if any, with which the instrument is chargeable. Section 31(2) of the Stamp Act provided the manner as to how the Collector will adjudicate the proper stamp duty. Section 2(9) of the Stamp Act defines the “Collector”, and all the Registrars in the State have been declared as the Collector by the notification dated 27-11-1981 for the purposes of Stamp Act. No application was made under Section 31 of the Stamp Act for adjudication of requisite stamp duty on the instrument and no person had applied to have the opinion of the Collector, and therefore, there is no adjudication under Section 31 of the Stamp Act, by the Collector. 43. From Rule 4 of the “The Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments Rules, 1975” (hereinafter, called as “the Rules of 1975”), the Collector may take action suo motu and can issue notice in Form II or III as the case may be, to the person concerned in whose favour the instrument has been executed. It also provided that the Collector is empowered to record statement of the person to whom the notice under sub-rule 2 is issued. Sub-rule 4 provided that the Collector may, for the purpose of enquiry, call for the information or record from any public office or authority or local authority and may also examine the Wp 320 of 2002 33 record and may also inspect the property after due notice to the parties concerned. The specific procedure has been prescribed in Sub-rule 3 of the Rules of 1975 for making an enquiry by the Collector of Stamps to examine the instrument and to find out the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the instrument. 44. Any adjudication of the Collector under Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is appealable under Section 47-A (4) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and first appeal is to be filed before the Commissioner of the Division and second appeal would lie before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides complete machinery for determination of correct market value of the property of the instrument. The Collector has rightly taken suo motu action and initiate proceeding against the petitioners and provided opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. Therefore, challenge to the proceeding initiated by the Collector of Stamps is not sustainable. It is also necessary to quote the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, which is as under:- "47-A. Instruments undervalued how to be dealt with (1) If the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (No.XVI of 1908) while registering any instrument has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same in the Collector for determination of market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. Wp 320 of 2002 34 (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner, as may be prescribed determine the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. (3) The Collector may suo motu, within five years from the date of registration of any instrument already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of sat himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of any s instrument and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the mari value of such property has not been truly set-forth in the instrument, he may determine the market valued such property and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (2). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any instrument registered prior to the date of the commencement of the Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1975. "(4) Any aggrieved by an order of the Collector under sub-section (2) or sub- section (3) may, in the prescribed manner appeal against such order to the Commissioner who may either himself decide the appeal or transfer it to the Additional Commissioner of the Division.] (5) Any person aggrieved by an order passed in appeal under sub-section (4) may in the prescribed manner appeal against such order to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madhya Pradesh. Wp 320 of 2002 35 (6) Every first and second appeal shall be filed within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order against which the appeal is filed, along with a certified copy of the order to which objection is made and shall be presented and verified in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that in computing the period aforesaid, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded. (7) The appellate authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed: Provided that no order shall be passed without affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant (8) The order passed in second appeal or where second appeal is preferred the order passed in first appeal shall be final and subject to orders passed in first or second appeal, as the case may be, the order passed by the Collector under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) shall be final and shall not be called into question in any Civil Court or before any other authority whatsoever. [Explanation. For the purpose of this Act, Market Value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Collector or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, such propery would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument)-M.P. Act 8 of 1975, S.8 (15-5-1975). 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 Wp 320 of 2002 36 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 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 Wp 320 of 2002 37 Income Tax and 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 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. Wp 320 of 2002 38 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 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. Wp 320 of 2002 39 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. 52. It is made clear that this court has not expresses any opinion on merits of the case, only taken note of the facts for and to decide the case as per the material available on record, and the Collector of Stamp shall decide the matter on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this court in the foregoing paragraphs. 53. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 54. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 55. The records of the Collector of Stamps, Raipur should be sent back immediately along with a copy of this Order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma