HSOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Writ Petition fArt.227) No.2883 of 2011 Petitioner M/s. Lafarge india Private Umited, Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopal Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsii Janjgir, djstrid Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (Legai). Respondenfs E ' ^ Petifioner Resoondents Petitioner Respondents Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-Registrar, JanjQir, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Maniram, agedabout 48 years, son of Shri Ramayan, caste Gaderiya, ressdent of viiiage Chorbhatti, tahsii Pamgarh, dl^rlct Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Writ Petition ^Art.2271 No.2885 of 2011 M/s. Lafarge india Private Limlled, Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopa! Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsii Janjgir, district Janjglr-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (LegaS). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh^, through the Sub-RegIstrar, Janjglr, distnct Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Sanichranf, aged about 50 yeare, son of Shrl IViuriya, caste Teti, resident of viilage Kirari, tahsii Champa, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Writ Petltion i^si.227} hSo.2893 of 2011 M/'s. Lafarge india Private Limtled, Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopa! Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsii Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (Lega!). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through ihe Sub-Registrar, Janjgir, district Janjair-Champa (C.G.) :5 Petltioner Respondents PefStioner ResDondents Petitloner Respondents 2. Tungan, aged 60 years, son of Shri Nankl, caste Gond, resident of Viiiage Kirari, tahsii Champa, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Writ Petition (Art.2271 No.2894 of 2011 M/s. Lafarge tndia Private Limited, Arasmeta Cement Plant, GopaE Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsil Janjgir, distnct Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (Legal). Ve/sys 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-Regjstrar, Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Johan LaS, son of Shn Janakram, caste Kurmi, resident of viSlage Chorbhatti, tahsii Pamgarh, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Writ Petition (Art.227) No.2895 of 2011 M/s. Lafarge india Private Umited, Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopai Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsii Janjgjr, djstrict Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (Lega!). Versus 1. State of Chhatti^arh, through the Sub-Registrar, Janjgir, distria Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Kanwai Prasad, son of Shri Chhatte Ram Kashyap, caste Kurmi, resident ofvilSage Chorbhatti, tahsii Pamgarh, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Writ Petition (Art.227) No.2896 of 2011 M/s. Lafiarge jndia Private Limited, Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopat Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsil janjgir, district Janjglr-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (Lega!). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-Regjstrar, Janjgir, district '^<^ 1^^:y Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Petitioner Respondents Petitios'ier Respondents 2. Bindu, son of Shri Baiha Gaderiya, resident of viSlage Chorbhatti, fahsi! Pamgarh, district Janjgir-Champa Writ Petition (Art.227^ No.2897 of 2011 M/s. Lafarge India Private Limtted, Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopal Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsil Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (Legal). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-Registrar, Janjgir, distrid Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Chamru, son of Shri Dashrath Kyrmi, caste Kurmj, 3. Narmada, son of Shri Dashrath Kurmi Both are residents of viilage ChorbhattE, Sahsi! Pamgarh, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Writ Petition (Art.227) No.2898 of 2Q11 M/s. Lafarge india Private Limited, Arasmeta Cement P!ant, Gopa! Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsii Janjgir, district ^ JanjgEr-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (Legal). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-Registrar, Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Tuisiram, son of Shri Baiha Gaderiya, resident of vilSage Chorbhatti, tahsii Pamgarh, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 ii Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitloner Respondents Writ Petition (Art.227) No.2899 of 2011 M/s. Lafarge India Private Limited, Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopat Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsii Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (L^al). Versus 1. Sfate of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-Reglstrar, Janjgir, distdct Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Ghasiram Kashyap, son of Shri Bhagauram Kashyap, resident of viiiage Chorbhatti, tahsii Pamgarh, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Writ Petition fArt.227) No.2900 of 2011 M/s. Lafarge Sndia Private Limfted, Arasmeta Cement PIant, Gopal Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsii Janjgir, district Janjgjr-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (Lega!). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-R^istrar, Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Narayan, son of Shri Piia Gaderiya, resjdent of village Chorbhatti, tahsil Pamgarh, 4islrict Janjgir-Champa Writ PetitSon ^Art.227) No.2901 of 2011 M/s. Lafarge india Private Limfted, Arasmeta Cement Ptant, GopaS Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsij Janjgir, distnd Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (Lega!). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-RegisSrar, Janj'gir, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Krishna Kumar, son of Shri Kaia Singh Aghariya, resident of viilage Sarkhon, at present viliage —; Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner -^L Mauhadih, tahsii Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Writ Petition (Art.2271 No.2902 of 2011 M/s. Lafarge india Private Limited, Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopa! Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsii Janjgir, di'strict Janjgir-Champa (Chhatti^arh) through the Senior Manager (Legal). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-Registrar, Janjgir, dssSrlct Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Bundram Kashyap, son of Shri Tirithram Kashyap, resjdent of viISage Chorbhatti, tahsil Pamgarh, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Writ Petition {Art.2271 No.2903 of 2011 M/s. Lafarge India Private Limitod, Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopal Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsii Janjgir, district Janjgir-Chanaps (Chhatti^arh) through the Senlor Managsr (Legai). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-Regsstrar, Janjgir, dIstricS Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Ganeshram, son of Shri Bhagarrain Gaderiya, 3. Maheshram, son of Shri Bhagarram Gaderiya, 4. Rameshram, son of Shri Bhagarram Gaderiya; 5. Sureshram, son of Shri Bhagarram Gaderiya, Aii are residents of viJiage Chorbhatti, tahsi! Pamgarh, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Writ Petition (Art.227) No.2804 of 2011 M/'s. Lafarge india Private Limited, Arasmeta Cement P!ant, Gopal Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsil Janjgir, ^ IM Respondents Pefjtioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents district Janjgir-Champa (Chhatti^arh) through the Senior Manager (Legai). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-Registrar, Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Kaieshwar, son of Shri Mahettar Suryawanshi, 3. Lakheshwar, son of Shri Mahettar Suryawanshi, Both are residents of viiiage Chorbhattj, tahssl Pamgarh, districS Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Writ Petition {Art.227S No.3237 of 2011 M/'s. Lafarge india Private Umiteci, Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopal Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsii Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (Lega!). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-Registrar, Janjglr, dsstrict Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Chhotelal, aged 40 years, son of Shri Sunder, casle Gond, resident of viliage Kirari, tahsil Champa, distriot Janjgir-ChaTnpa (C.G.). And rit Petition (Art.227S No.3238 of 2011 M/s. Lafarge india Private Limited, Arasmeta Cement PIant, Gopal Nagar, Arasmeta, tahsii Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the Senior Manager (Legai). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sub-Registrar, Janjgir, districl Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. ^rtan Lal, aged 52 years, son of Shri Nankj, caste Gond, resident of M^; viltage Kirari, tahsi! Champa, district Janjgjr-Champa (C.G.). (Writ Petitions under Articie 227 ofthe Constitution of Sndia) Mr.Somnath Verma, counsel for the appeitant in ali the petitions. Mr.Sushil Dubey, Govt.Advocate for the respondent No.i/State in all the petltions. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (Passedon 3-11-2011) 1. Writ Petition (Art.227) Nos. 2883/2011, 2885/2011, 2893/2011, 2894/2011, 2895/2011, 2896/2011, 2897/2011, 2898/2011, 2899/2011, 2900/2011, 2901/2011, 2902/2011, 2903/2011, 2904/2011, 3237/2011 and 3238/2011 fiied against the orders dated 9.6.2008 and 8.7.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Biiaspur, in Appeal Case No.16/8-105(1 )/2004-05 whereby 16 appeate viz., (1) Appeai Case No.A/06/SA/B-t 05/498/2006, (2) Appeai Case No.A/06/SA/B- 105/499/2006, (3) AppeaS Case No.A/06/SA/B-l 05/500/2006, (4) Appeai Case No.16/B-105(1)/2004-05, (5) Appeai Case No.17/B-105(1)/2004-05. (5) Appeal Case No.18/8-105(1 )/2004-05, (7) Appeai Case No.19/B- 105(1)/2004-05, (8) Appea! Case No.20/B-105(1)/2004.05, (Q) Appeal Case No.21/B-105(1)/2004-05, (10) Appeal Case No.22/B-105(1 )/2004- 05. (11) Appeal Case No.23/B-105(1)/2004-05, (12) Appeal Case No.24/B-105(1)/2004-05, (13) Appeal Case No.25/8-105(1 )/2004-05, (14) AppeaS Case No.26/B-105(1)/2004-05, (15) Appeai Case No.27/B- 105(1)/2004-05 and (16) Appea! Case No.518/B-105(1 )/2004-05 reiating to aforesaid writ petitions have been dismissed, are disposed of by this common order. 2. By the aforesaid writ petitions, the appeiiant has challenged iegaiity and propriety of the orders dated 9.6.2008 and 8.7.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in Appeai Case No.16/B-105(1)/2004- 05, whereby the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Biiaspur has dismissed 1S appeals on the ground that there vvas oniy difference of recoverabie amount of stamp duty from Rs.1380/- to Rs.27629/-. "^ "^ r~~:fd ^^•'^^ /- vii^y 'H 3. i have heard iearned counsei for the parties, perused both the orders impugned, copy of order ofthe Coiiectors of Stamps and other documents fiied on behaif ofthe petitioner. 4. Appeals under Sections 47-A (4) of the indian Stamp Act, 1899 before the Board of Revenus were maintainabie on the date of 9.6.2008 and 8.7.2008. Ai! the appeals have been dismissed by the Board of Revenue onSy on the ground that there was difference of recoverabie amount of stamp duty from Rs.1380/- to Rs.27529/-. The mode adopted by the Coliector of Stamps was not objective in nature but subjectjve in nature, therefore, there may be some difference. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Board of Revenue has dismissed afl the appeais. 5. At the time of passing the order the Board of Revenue was under obligation to consider facts and circumstances of each case, recovery of stamp duty or iiabi!ity to pay stamp duty was required to prove strictly. Question of sma!i difference relating to recoverable amount is immateria! in the cases. While dismissing the appeate the Board of Revenue has committed ijiegaiity warranting interference in exercise of superyisory jurisdiction. 6. Consequently, Writ Petition (Art.227) Nos. 2883/2011, 2885/2011. 2893/2011, 2894/2011, 2895/2011, 2896/2011, 2897/2011, 2898/2011, 2899/2011,2900/2011, 2901/2011, 2902/2011, 2903/2011, 2904/2011, 3237/2011 and 3238/2011 deserve to be aiiowed and are hereby aliowed and orders dated 9.6.2008 and 8.7.2008 are hereby quashed. Case is remitted to the Coiiector of Stamps, Janjgir-Champa for passing th@ orcier afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. Parties are directed to remain present before the ColSector of Stamps, Janjgir- Champa on 14.12.2011. No order as to costs. __ S(V- T.P. Sharma Judge ^