Madhya Pradesh High Court
Century Textiles And Industries ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6644
1 WP-8856-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 12 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8856 of 2026
CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED (CTIL) THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SHRI ANIL DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra - Seniior Counsel with Shri Rohit Saboo -
Advocate for the petitioner..
Shri Amit Bhatia - Government Advocate for the respondents State.
ORDER
The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/Company challenging the interlocutory orders dated 04.02.2026 and 18.02.2026 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior.
2. Brief facts of the case are that there was a valuation done under Section 31 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Stamp Act ') as applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh by the Collector vide order dated 28.06.2021. Thereafter, it is contended by the petitioner that the respondent No.4, who happens to be the erstwhile Union to the petitioner/Company filed an application for review before the Collector, who vide order dated 21.02.2023(Annexure-P-6) has rejected the said review on the ground that he being the same authority could not review the order being functus officio.
3. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 questioned the order dated 21.02.2023 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 12-03-2026 17:01:54 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6644 2 WP-8856-2026 passed in Review before this Court in Writ Petition No. 17420 of 2023, wherein this Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 dismissed the challenge made by the respondent No.4 which was further subjected to challenge in Writ Appeal No. 891 of 2024, wherein the Division Bench of this Court on 28.05.2024 further dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the respondent No.4. Thereafter the respondent No.4 again approached this Court by filing a Review petition No. 840 of 2024which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2024.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It transpires from the record that the said respondent i.e respondent No.4 filed revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) who registered the case and issued notices for the first time and the present petitioner/Company received the notices in the month of October, 2025 and thereafter the petitioner filed their objection on 21.01.2026 regarding the maintainability of the revision filed by the respondent No.4. However, it is contended by the petitioner and it also transpires by the orders passed by the Revenue Board which is impugned in the present writ petition that the question of maintainability has not been decided by the said authority and the authority has proceeded with the matter to decide the same along with the final order.
6. It goes without saying that the primary issue before the respondent Board is to decide first the maintainability of the petition and then to proceed further, if the matter is maintainable then the authorities requires to proceed with the matter further . The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Raymond Ltd and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and other reported in (2007) 3 SCC 79 held that Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the authority suo motu or it can be invoked by the State or by the party who had applied under Section 31 seeking determination of amount of stamp duty by the Collector.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 12-03-2026 17:01:54NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6644 3 WP-8856-2026
7. This Court without entering into the merits of the entitlement of the petitioner/Company hereby directs the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) to first advert on the objection of the maintainability filed by the petitioner. It is made clear that on deciding the question of maintainability if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, the period of 15 days is granted to the petitioner to question the said order before the appropriate Forum, in accordance with law. It is made clear that after the lapse of 15 days the authority/Presiding officer CCRA is free to proceed ahead to decide the matter on its own merit.
8. The copy of this order be handed over to the Government Advocate Amit Bhatiya, who shall communicate the order to the Presiding Officer of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) regarding the order so that he may not proceed with the matter further.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed off. Certified copy today itself.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI) JUDGE rashmi Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 12-03-2026 17:01:54