Govt. of U.P. v. Raja Mohd. Amir Ahmad Khan, (1962) 

Introduction 

The case Government of U.P. v. Raja Mohammad (1962) is a significant ruling concerning the interpretation and application of Sections 31, 32, and 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The matter revolves around the proper procedure for determining stamp duty and whether a Collector can impound a document referred to him only for opinion under Section 31. The Supreme Court clarified the limits of the Collector's power and the application of the doctrine of functus officio in such cases.

Facts of the Case

In 1949, the respondent, Raja Mohammad, executed a waqf deed. This deed was signed and stamped, albeit with a basic level of stamp duty. Later, the respondent submitted the document to the Collector under Section 31 of the Stamp Act, seeking an official opinion on the correct amount of stamp duty payable.

The Collector, being uncertain about the applicable duty, forwarded the document to the Board of Revenue. The Board assessed that the proper duty payable was Rs. 85,598. After a significant delay, the Collector informed the respondent of this assessment and also imposed a penalty for non-payment of proper duty. Additionally, the Collector impounded the document under Section 33 of the Stamp Act.

Issues Raised

1. Whether a document referred under Section 31 can be impounded under Section 33?
2. Whether the Collector retains the power to impound the document after providing his opinion on stamp duty?
3. Whether the High Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the Collector’s order?

Case History

1. The respondent approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Collector’s order. The High Court held in favor of the respondent, observing that Section 33 applies only when a document is presented before a public officer in the course of a case, particularly when it is to be used as evidence, and not when it is submitted solely for opinion under Section 31.
2. The State of U.P. appealed this decision in the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and made the following key observations:

1. Section 31 allows a person to refer a document to the Collector for his opinion on the stamp duty payable.
2. When a document is referred to the Collector under Section 31 within one month of execution, Section 32 empowers the Collector to examine whether it is duly stamped and whether the correct stamp duty has been paid." In this case, the document was referred within the stipulated time.
3. Section 33, which provides for the impounding of instruments, applies only when the document is produced in the course of proceedings before a public officer or court for use as evidence, and not when it is submitted merely for an opinion under Section 31.
4. The Court invoked the Doctrine of Functus Officio, which implies that once an official has performed the duty assigned to him (here, the determination of duty under Section 32), his authority in that matter ceases. Therefore, the Collector had no power to impound the document after expressing his opinion.

Final Decision

1. The Supreme Court concluded that the Collector acted beyond his authority in impounding the document under Section 33 after completing his function under Section 32. The Court confirmed that the impounding power under Section 33 does not apply in cases where the document is referred for opinion under Section 31.
2. Thus, the appeal by the State of U.P. was dismissed, and the High Court’s order quashing the Collector’s decision was upheld