RAJENDRA GUPTA Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property in question comprising of Bungalow No. 362 and part of plot Nos. 210, 211 and 216 situate in Civil Lines Jhansi was the property of the then Zamindar Smt. Sarju Bai. She executed Dwami Patta some time in the years 1937-1941 in respect of the above property in favour of Mission Trust Vatarion Church, United States of America. One Khagendra Das and Hari Krishan Lal Atri purchased the rights in the said property from the above Mission Trust. Petitioner alongwith Jai Chandra Arya and Virendra Gupta purchased the rights in the aforesaid property from the aforesaid Khagendra Das and Hari Krishan Lal Atri vide two separate sale-deeds executed on 9.8.1968 and 24.6.1969 respectively and since then is in possession and use of it. On the aforesaid sale-deeds full stamp duty as is. applicable to a deed of conveyance was. paid. No person ever disputed the rights of the petitioner over the said land which he alongwith two other persons had acquired by the aforesaid sale-deeds. Nonetheless, Reva Shanker Bhayal, son of Onkar Das Bhayal heir of the then Zamindar executed instrument No. 4069 of 1990 announcing that the petitioner alongwith Jai Chand Arya and Virendra Gupta are in possession of the above referred property and that he has no concern with the same and that he renounces all his rights in it, if any, in favour of them.

(2.) The aforesaid instrument No. 4069 of 1990 which is described in the instrument itself as "Dastbardari" was subjected to proceedings under Section 47A of the (Indian) Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the complaint made by one Mool Chandra Yadav, a news reporter. An inspection report from the Tehsildar was called for and was submitted on 31.8.1992 stating that the instrument purports to transfer the above property and as such there is evasion of stamp duty. The Collector Jhansi vide order dated 25.7.1996 held the instrument to be a deed of conveyance liable to stamp duty in accordance with Article 23 of Schedule 1-B of the Act. The contention of the petitioner that it is a "deed of release" covered by Article 55 of Schedule 1-B of the Act was repelled. The order of the Collector found the approval of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, who dismissed the revision against it vide order dated 27.5.2003.

(3.) I have heard Sri Krishna Kant Dwivedi and Sri P.C. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel, for the parties.