PRAKASH CHANDRA MODI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions have been filed against the common judgment of the learned Board of Revenue, being D/- 9-5-95 Annex. 7, accepting the revisions of the State Government, filed under Section 56 of the Stamp Act, 1899, hereafter to be referred to as the Act. Those revisions were filed against the order of the District Collector (Stamp), D/- 9-7-92. Since one property was sold by three separate sale deeds, in separate portions, to three different persons, of different capacity, and therefore, identical question about leviability of the stamp duty arose, and that has been decided by the common order by the learned Board of Revenue, and therefore, all these three petitions are being decided by this common order.

(2.) The facts of the case, as appear on the record are. that one R. S. Kushwaha had obtained 99 years lease of the plot, including a house constructed thereon, from the Urban Improvement Trust, hereafter to be referred to as the UIT, under a registered lease deed, and the said tenement was transferred in three different portions, by three separate registered documents, purporting to be the document of transfer of leasehold rights. These documents were presented for registration, and Sub-Registrar vide his communication D/- 10-2-92 referred the matter to the Collector, observing that the stamp duty is leviable on the market price of the property, @ Rs. 1440/- per sq. mt., and therefore, the appropriate stamp duty be determined. Thereupon notice was given to the transferees and the transferor. The transferees objected, and submitted that according to Article 63 of the Act, the stamp duty is payable on the consideration for which the lease hold rights were transferred, at the rates prescribed under Art. 23, and therefore, the provisions of Section 47A are not attracted, and the market value of the property cannot be determined according to Section 47 "Kha". Various stipulations of the lease deed were also referred to.

(3.) The learned Collector (Stamp) found, that the stamp duty has been paid on the consideration in accordance with Art. 63. and therefore, the reference made by the sub-Registrar was rejected.