Legal Analysis of Delegation of Powers in Statutory Appeals

Discover the profound legal analysis conducted by the court regarding the delegation of powers in statutory appeals. The case delves into the complexities of decision-making processes, emphasizing the importance of upholding statutory requirements. Stay tuned to unravel the intricate details of this significant legal debate.


  • Registrant has no objection regarding the valuation of the document
  • Respondent filed statutory appeal which was rejected by the Inspector General of Registration
  • Inspector General of Registration issued the rejection order on 05.08.2005
  • Appellant No.1 delegated his duty to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration against the decision in the case of S. Santhi vs Chief Revenue Controlling Authority.
  • Rule 6 was not followed in this delegation of duty.
  • The first Respondent is not empowered to delegate the powers conferred on him.

Also Read: Legal Analysis on Arbitration Petition Limitation Period


  • Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act addresses cases where the market value of a property in an instrument of conveyance is believed to be undervalued.
  • If the Registering Officer suspects undervaluation while registering such an instrument, they may refer it to the Collector for determination of the proper duty payable on the property.
  • The key factors considered are the market value of the property and whether it has been accurately reflected in the instrument.
  • The Section aims to prevent under-reporting of property values in documents such as conveyances, exchanges, gifts, releases of benami rights, or settlements.
  • Ultimately, the Collector will assess the market value independently to ensure the proper stamp duty is paid.

Also Read: Analysis of High Courts’ Jurisdiction and Court Orders Under Article 142


  • Mr. C.U. Singh, representing the respondent Union, argues that interpreting Section 25-FFA of the ID Act as directory rather than mandatory would lead to penal provisions under Section 30-A being applied to the appellant Company.
  • Accepting a directory interpretation would defeat the purpose of the 1972 amendment to Section 25-FFA and go against the legislative intent of Parliament.
  • Section 25-FFA of the ID Act provides statutory protection to workmen in case of retrenchment due to closure of a department/unit, aiming to protect their livelihood and that of their families.

Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election


  • Section 94-A of the Indian Stamp Act allows the Corporation to delegate its powers and functions to officers or authorities subordinate to the Corporation.
  • The delegated officer or authority may not further delegate the power to any other officer unless specified.
  • The State Government can declare the resumption of land management after conducting an enquiry.
  • The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has the power to review and modify orders passed under Section 47-A of the Act.
  • The Collector must determine the market value of properties and stamp duty payable, taking into account representations and evidence.
  • Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector can appeal to the prescribed Authority within the specified time.
  • The Collector can provisionally determine the market value and duty payable, with provisions for interest on unpaid amounts.
  • The Collector must issue notice to parties involved in a conveyance, gift, or settlement to produce evidence of market value within a specified time.
  • The Collector has the authority to examine instruments within five years of registration to ensure correct market value declaration.
  • The Collector’s final order determining market value must consider various factors such as location, amenities, structure, and purpose of the property.
  • The rules set out a detailed procedure for the enquiry to determine the correct value of the property.
  • The High Court observed that certain tasks may be delegated by the primary delegate as long as the essential decision-making functions are not compromised.
  • Section 76-A and its delegation of powers were discussed in relation to the proper exercise of authority.
  • The necessity of adhering to timelines and procedural requirements was emphasized, with an indication of the penalty for non-compliance.
  • The power to enhance market value during appeals was scrutinized, and the delegation of powers under Section 65(1) was debated.
  • The issue of delegation versus sub-delegation of powers was examined in light of statutory provisions.
  • The question of whether the stipulated timeframes were mandatory or directory was a key focus, leading to a determination of their nature.
  • The role of the appellate authority, the necessity of reasons for decisions, and the proper exercise of suo motu powers were discussed.
  • The procedure for arriving at the final market value and the significance of procedural compliance were highlighted.
  • The need for adherence to statutory limitations and the consideration of revenue interests were underscored in the decision-making process.
  • The Minister at the head of the Board is directly responsible to Parliament like other Ministers.
  • Determining whether a provision is mandatory or directory depends on the intent of the law-maker, considering its nature, design, and consequences.
  • Delegation of administrative tasks by subordinate authorities is permissible in furtherance of the delegated power.
  • Statutory functionaries can delegate tasks as long as the essential function of decision-making is performed by the delegate.
  • Practical necessities of administration may require delegation of tasks when needed.
  • Delegation of power can be sustained if authorized by express words or necessary implication.
  • Provisions of a statute may be held to be directory to avoid serious inconvenience or injustice when neglecting them does not affect the validity of the acts.
  • Certain provisions in statutes may be considered procedural and not mandatory if they do not cause prejudice.
  • Revisional jurisdiction is to ensure subordinate tribunals stay within legal bounds and act in accordance with the law.
  • Sub-delegation can be allowed if permitted by express provision or necessary implication.
  • The High Court erred in setting aside the exercise of power by the concerned authority
  • The exercise of power was aimed at preventing an obvious illegality and prejudice to revenue
  • The exercise was deemed correct and the orders passed should not have been set aside


  • District Registrar recommended values of Rs.480/- per sq.ft. for documents registered in 2005 and Rs.544/- per sq.ft. for documents registered in 2007.
  • Open market value determined at Rs.26,95,400/- as per details in the document.
  • Orders passed by the appellate authority are restored, and appeals are allowed.
  • Appeal arises from a judgment dated 02.02.2018 passed by the High Court in CMA No 2666 of 2012.


Case Number: C.A. No.-002586-002586 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *