S. Kumara Bangarappa vs The Special Deputy Commissioner of Detection of under Valuation of Stamps and Another

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—Heard the Counsel for the appellant.

It is the contention of the appellant that the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation) Rules, 1977 is illegal and without jurisdiction since the said rule is omitted by amendment with effect from 21-8-1999.

Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, an appeal is provided to the Divisional Commissioner according to Sub-section (5) of Section 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act. It is the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that no appeal is provided against the provisional order made under Rule 6, which is now stands repealed. Therefore, the suit is filed.

The Trial Court has held that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and the remedy available to the party is by way of an appeal under the Stamp Act and Rules. The view taken by the Trial Court is sound and proper. The appellant has to file an appeal u/s 45A. The time spent in prosecuting the suit before the Civil Court could be pleaded as a reason for condonation of delay, if any before the Appellate Authority under the Stamp Act. Although the provision for appeal against the provisional order is repealed, still the Appellate Authority under the Act will have necessary incidental jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the interim orders and grant necessary relief.

The original Section 45A provides appeal to the District Judge from the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Section 45A is amended and the appellate power of the District Judge is withdrawn and came to be invested in the Divisional Commissioner. I find from the Book Karnataka Stamp Act, 1956 published by the AMEYA Publications 2002, the District Judge is still shown as the Appellate Authority. The amendments are not properly reflected in the book produced for reference.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the abolition of the office of the Divisional Commissioner, appeal is provided to Deputy Inspector General of Stamps. If it is so, a necessary amendment to the Act and to the Rules is to be effected. Otherwise it would be a serious lacuna and the litigant public would be misguided and would be put to unnecessary delay and harassment.

The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the law Secretary to bring to the notice of the Government the anomalous statutory position and for taking needful steps.