PRADEEP CHOUKSEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS in both the writ petitions challenge is to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience we shall advert to the facts in W.P. No. 597/2001.

(2.) THE petitioners, three in number, have putforth that the Act contains provisions making certain instruments chargeable to duty, the manner as to payment of duty, adjudication as to proper stamps, treatment of instruments not duly stamped controlled by different revenue authorities and the schedules including Schedule I -A appended to the Act describing the origin of stamp duty and rates on different instruments. A reference has been made to Section 2(10) of the Act which defines 'conveyance' to include conveyance on sale and any instrument by which property whether movable or immovable is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for in the Schedule I or Schedule I -A. Section 19(a) has also been reproduced. It is urged in the petition that the State Legislature of the Slate of M.P. has amended Article 48 of the Schedule I -A with effect from 1 -54997 as a consequence of which Clause (f) has been substituted and Clause (f -i) has been introduced. The said provision deals with the instrument, namely, 'the power of attorney'. It is putforth that during the pendency of the petition there has been further amendment by M.P. Act No. 12 of 2002 published in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra (Asadharan), dated 12 -8 -2002 whereby Schedule I -A of the Principal Act has been substituted, as Article 48 of Schedule I -A has been substituted and Article 45 has come into being which relates to power of attorney. It is putforth that the amendment which has been brought into existence by 2002 amendment is absolutely unconstitutional being arbitrary and irrational and inconsistent with the provisions of the basic statute.

(3.) A return has been filed by the answering respondents wherein it has been mentioned that a detailed return has been filed in W.P. No. 4683/1999 and the same should be taken into consideration. In view of the aforesaid we are inclined to refer to the return filed in the other writ petition. What has been stated in the return is that after filing of the writ petition some amendments have been broughtforth and they are in consonance with the statute. It is setforth in the return that in the earlier provision there were defects and certain lacunae which were being misused by the executant of the power of attorney. It is pleaded, taking note of the increase of urban population and proportionate decline in the housing immovable property the practice of immovable property by constructing apartments, blocks has increased manifold. Developers and builders of immovable property adopted practising of carrying out development and construction purely on the basis of power of attorney and thereafter, execute a deed of conveyance in favour of their customers. A reference has been made to Section 2(1) which defines 'conveyance' to highlight that power of attorney holders have been developing the property purely on the power of attorney basis and developers and builders were misusing the provisions of the Act and thereby depriving the State much needed Revenue, It is also urged that the provision of the Act has not been violated by bringing in the amendments and the stand taken by the petitioners is sans substance.