RAKESH SINGARE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the circular j dated 17. 5. 2005 issued from the office of the Registrar providing for calculation of stamp duty on the mining lease by auction sale and the order dated 5. 7. 2006 passed by the in charge officer (Mining Branch) Collectorate, Balaghat cancelling the mining lease for not getting the agreement registered and for not depositing the instalments.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the sand quarry in village Gaykhuri, Tahsil and district Balaghat in Khasra No. 152/1,area 7. 80 acres was auctioned in favour of the petitioner. The agreement in the prescribed Form 18 under rule 37 (1) of the m. P. Mining and Mineral Rules, 1961 was executed for grant of quarry lease in favour of the petitioner for the period of 2 years from 1. 4. 2005 to 31. 3. 2007 on payment of Rs. 5,04,000/- as contract amount and also payment of Rs. 12,600/- as advance money and Rs. 63,000/- as security. The case of the petitioner is that he was asked to submit Nonjudicial Stamp papers of Rs. 20,140/- for lease agreement which he deposited on 26. 3. 2005 with the respondents 2 and 3. On 31. 3. 2005 he deposited the security amount of Rs. 75,600/- and thereafter he again deposited rs. 63,000/ -. The lease deed dated 6. 8. 2005 (Annexure-P/1) was drafted and signed. Thereafter on 7. 12. 2005 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging violation of the conditions of agreement on the ground that the petitioner did not get the lease deed registered and did not pay the instalments of 1. 7. 2005 and 1. 10. 2005 and also did not file the monthly return. The petitioner submitted the reply that he was ready to get the agreement registered for one year for which he had submitted the stamps but he was being asked to get the agreement registered for two years for which he was not agreeable. Another show cause notice dated 16. 3. 2006 was served upon the petitioner to get the lease deed registered within a week and produce the registration receipt failing which the sanction of the mining would be cancelled and the mine will be reauctioned. Petitioner filed reply dated 22. 3. 2006. There was a dispute as to which Article of stamp Act will be attracted in the matter for payment of stamp duty. The respondents passed the order dated 5. 7. 2006 cancelling the lease deed on the ground that the petitioner did not get the lease deed registered and did not pay the instalment. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted since under the lease, the rent was fixed and no premium was payable, therefore, he had deposited the stamp papers as required by Article 35 (a) (ii) of the Indian Stamp Act. He further submitted that since the respondents did not act upon the lease deed and did not supply the royalty book, therefore, he could not pay the instalment.