CONSOLIDATED COFFEE LTD Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR KODAGU SB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under S. 54 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the 'stamp Act' ).

(2.) THE essential facts of the case leading up to this case are as follows :-The petitioner herein which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, agreed to take over a Tea Estate known as 'glenlorna Tea Estate' comprised in different Survey Nos. situate in Poradu Village, T. Shettigeri Village and Nemmale village of Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District and measuring in all 942. 56 Acres. The said Tea Estate is leasehold granted by Government of Coorg under two lease deeds dated 1913-1914 and 1915-1916, for a period of 999 years. The property passed different hands and Coorg Tea Company Limited acquired leasehold right in the said Tea Estate and agreed to convey leasehold rights to the petitioner in the said Tea Estate for a consideration of Rs. 1,36,25,000/ -. Being doubtful about the stamp duty to be paid on the said conveyance, the petitioner addressed a letter to the District Registrar of Kodagu, Mercara on 21-5-1985 under S. 31 of the Stamp Act and the District Registrar conveyed by his communication dated 27-5-1985 that for consideration for transfer of assignment of Rs. 1,36,35,000/- the stamp duty inclusive of surcharge will be Rs. 13,63,500/- and in addition, the Registration fee will be Rs. 1,36,250/ -. The deed dated 5-6-1985 was presented for registration on 6-6-1985 before the Sub-Registrar, Ponnampet, Kodagu and registered on payment of the above said Stamp Duty and Registration fee. However, the petitioner filed a petition under S. 53 of the Stamp Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority seeking for refund of surcharge of Rs. 4,11,500/- contending that the deed was only assignment of lease and not sale and Section 164 (7) of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, (in short, the 'panchayat Act') was not attracted. Appeal was rejected holding that the deed was in substance a sale and not mere assignment and dismissed on 21-7-1986. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 8193/1988 seeking for a direction to refer the case under S. 54 of the Stamp Act. Writ Petition was allowed directing to make a reference on 9-3-1995. this reference is made under S. 54 of the Stamp Act for the opinion on the following questions :

(3.) WE have heard Sri R. V. S. Naik, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Parthasarathy, the learned High Court Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the relevant material and provisions.