R.PRAVEEN CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these petitions, the issue relates to the notices issued to the petitioners calling upon them to register the supplementary document and pay stamp duty on such document. Hence, both these petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) For the purpose of narration of facts, the case as arising in W.P.No.10794/2011 is taken note.

(3.) The petitioner's father had originally sought for grant of mining lease. Accordingly, the lease was granted to which the petitioner has succeeded. The lease deed dated 15.01.2001 was executed for a period of twenty years which was accordingly registered after payment of the stamp duty as required to be paid under The Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The petitioner has thereafter carried on the mining operations in the land, to which reference has been made in the lease deed. While registering the document, the estimated royalty payable was taken into consideration and the stamp duty was accordingly paid. However, since according to the respondents, through the Audit Enquiry No.19 dated 25.03.2009 as at Annexure 'A2' since certain observations were made with regard to the increase in the payment of royalty due to the accelerated activity, the respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 03.01.2011 as at Annexure 'A' and the communication dated 31.01.2011 as at Annexure 'A1' was accordingly issued by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner. The petitioner in that light claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this petition. On similar facts, the notice at Annexure 'A' and the communication at Annexure 'A1' of even date is assailed in W.P.No.12822/2011.