GF ]6o7 IN TSE HXGH COtffitT OE JBDIC&T^RE Af 3ABALP0R ^<^ ' IY3 WCTT PEEmON B^A33^-/I SSSJ (WRIT PETITION 8NBER ARTIClS~S?8/227 OF 1HE COHSTITtmOH OP XNDIA) PETITIONBR; KESPOBX2EN3S AtCET KHER S/0 CBAMaNLAL KHER aged afaoat 36 'years» Besident aE S&anter Kagar» ^roprietor - M/a Blue Spot. ShaaKar Nagar, fiaApar BJtstt»RaipaE (MP). //yersas// 1. Tfae state of Madhya Pradesh, throagh colleetor, Raipar (MP)» 2< Tbe Inspeetor Seaeral of Regis<sratj.<»i an<3 sUperlntendent 6f Stamps. Gevt:<of Hadhya Pradesb. Gwalior (MP). 3» Distr4.et Registrar aad Collecter of Stamps» Raipar (MP). 4» state Barals of Xnia.la, KacteharJL Ghewfc Braneh, 8ateur»Bistfe«Ralp8r (MP)• TtSIT SBTITIOS imiaER ARTXCIiE 226/227 Of 2HB CONSTITBTXOH PJF XHBXA -"~'-—:-—--~' Kf ^:...l XI-HC-22 sn^rqiT f^iRisn^T Sbli°b «[gd • © ^st "iii<ii"i«,®Tn*<'is,Riciiyy *< 11-1pfT !»)*iirai RI^sich. ^y^-. ^,. f.....,..-,....,..l.,^ .^^ 3I1^?T B^TTW Hfer Shri Y.K. IVtunshi, Sr. fi\dv., with Shri B.P. Sharma counsel forthe petitioner. Agrawai, Dy. A.G., for the Stal Heard. This case has been re Learned counsel appea| matter is squarely covered Division Benchof the High bearingWrit Petition No.4854| matter has also been reported] of 1999 - M/s. Vikas ConcrN The points raised in thj raised in aforesaid writ petiti) Division Bench ofthe High Coi|irt while deciding the aforesaic| obsen/ed as under: <tii<ifa41-f iitf(iTfr')Wt'<[Si'Ki< ^i3TRffl'3n^T . Advocate General, with Shri N.K. :eived on transfer from the High Court of 'fing tor the State very fairty stated that thls bfc? order dated 07/02/2003 passed by the C^urt of Madhya Pradesh in bunch of cases lof 1999 and the connected matters. T-his in 2003 (!) MPJR- SN 62 W.P. No, 4854 eJndystnesVs. Sate of M.PJ s petition are simiiar to that of the points >ns and the same have been decided by rt of Madhya Pradesh. IS is submitted that writ • petitions, the Division Bench has (^^Nr) <^l iegal position. ('fli^^) e?- XI-HC-22 3^';qraT?PT, SrfrffiT?, &<1WS< 311^1 4s|ch *n*<wi s»i*<icn ^' 2e«- t-HC-22 sn^T^ii ls-ii<»i3n^r ai'iRidfga' 3^ '^ww-'i, W^WIG, fa?irey &.7 .3^!^ sn^r^grwfff^cT diffelrence cjuty because it is si similar property Section 75 of tHe proviso to Secti<)n effect from the force i.e. 25/61/1 (e) The retroactivityl the persons wht? wouid be liable persons who ha|u would not be entlti ^— +i4Fd'!fl-f tii^dTfftec3'; ^i3(RlIT3II^T between th®two concepts, and rate of duty; slature has the competence to of stamp duty as. per Entry 63 44 of List-111 of the Seventh (a) "There is a namely, stamp The State Leg| provide the read with Entr^ Scheduie of the (c) There is no di^crimination because a document relating to imm^vable property is liable to extra stamp duty uncfer Section 75 of the 1993 Act sitMated within the block whereas a ps not liable to excess duty soleiy is situated within the Municipal 1993 Act is intra vires and the 75 is to be given retrospective Idate when Section 75 came into 1994;and Vi/ould have limited effect so that have not paid the starnp duty |to pay under the proviso but the (b'e paid under fhe main provision ing for the petitioner does not dispute this (if^y^t) ^ XI-HC-22 3'i? •*iww^, wvf\ww, &ciwg< 3il^iMs<<*> 11HWI BiHTW Wf 2ftft- an^TEBT R:IW3I7^T ai^l'bHfta' 3TT^?T 6«IIWflfer -J in view of the submissional and, particularly the fact ision of the Division Benctl stands finally disposed of| as to i(osts. ^ _^. f^^ ^•Mr^ftt^ Sd/- ActingChiefJustice 'hKlFd'fl-l HlfCTl' ff fe^)'<R]«lt ^srf^Tsn^r made by the counsel appearing for the [that this matter is squareiy covered by of High Gourt of Madhya Pradesh, this With the obsen/ations quoted above. Learned eounse! for the (setitioners prays for refund of security The security amount, ifaijiy, deposited, be refunded. There shall Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha - - 'Judge •^v (•flAsfigi') niCMa