ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by respondent No.2/Collector (Stamps) and affirmed by order dated 30.05.2000 (Annexure-P/20) by the Board of Revenue holding that the document in question dated 04.10.1999 (Annexure-P/16) is undervalued.

(2.) No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that the petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent no.5/Estate Officer and eventually a registered lease-deed dated 04.10.1999 (Annexure-P/16) was executed in his favour. When the said document was submitted for registration to the Sub Registrar, Bhopal, he opined that the document is having deficit stamp duty of Rs.52,722/-. Eventually, the matter was referred to the Collector Stamps/District Registrar who vide order dated 30.10.1999 (Annexure-P/18) concurred with the view of Sub Registrar and passed an order directing petitioner to deposit deficit stamp duty of Rs.52,722/-. This order has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 30.05.2000 (Annexure-P/20).

(3.) The contention of Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case the un-amended Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short unamended Act of 1899") is applicable. He has invited this Court's attention to item no.35 of the Schedule 1-A which relates to lease and has put emphasis on Clause-(v) which is in respect to lease-deed and has submitted that if a lease-deed is executed for a term exceeding twenty years but not exceeding thirty years as well as clause (c) which pertains to the premium the stamp duty is payable according to these clauses. Further it is submitted by him that the petitioner executed the document in terms of the Schedule 1-A of the unamended Act of 1899 on the stamp duty of Rs.11,613/- although according to law the stamp duty would come to Rs.11,059/-. Hence, it has been prayed that the order of Collector (Stamps)/respondent no.2 is ex facie illegal and same error has been committed by the Board of Revenue (respondent no.1).