•7 <:::><>3 ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR. Wnt Petition No Lj (s ^ tl Of 1999. Daujl Farms Limited, through the Managi'ng Director, Ashutosh Agrawal, Near State Bank of India, Post Neora, Tahsil & D1st. Raipur Ashutosh Agrawal, Managing Director, Dauji Farms Limited, Near State Bank of India, Post Neora, Tahsil & Dist. Raipur 3. Arvind Agrawal, * Director", Dauji Farms Limited, . Near State Bank.of India, ~ . Post Neora, Tahsit & Dist. Ratpur VERSUUS State of Madhya Pradesh, through theSecretary, Department of Revenue, - Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. PETITIONER Inspector General of Registration & Supennterident of Stamps, Govemment of Madhya Pradesh', Gwallor. District Registrar & Collector of Stamps, Raipur. '<«> Dena Bank, Through Branch Manager, Post Offtce Neora, Tahsi1& D-istnct Raipur. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA ws-y- .y XI-HC-22 3^'^iral?pT, oTflu'is, Riwiuy sn^TT '<5lt»» *ll*<wi (hll<h^.^.^&^w^ SM- sn^rqiT f^wsn^r raiofer sbll'bW HOWBLE SI-RI FAKS^UDDiN, ^:.'-- .. sn^TTOnwflfer None for the petitioneis petitioneBon 09/02/2005. Shri Prashant Mishra, fi Agrawal, Dy. A.G., forthe State,) Heard. This case has been rec( Madhya pFadesh. Learned counsel appearirl matter is squarely covered by Division BenGh of the High beai-ing Writ Petition No.4854 of matter has also been reported in| The points raisect. in this| raised in aforesaid writ petitio4 Division Bench oftheHighCourJ while deciding the aforesaid obsen/ed as under: '»il<<I<'l<fl-1TORlfffteA <R|<^|< ^3lR|IT3II^T |ough fixed date SPC was issued to the [ddl. Advocate General, with Shri N.K. Irespondents. tived on transfer from the High Court of g for the'State very fairiy stated thatthis. orderdated 07/02/2003 passed by the 6f Madhyai Pradesh in bunch of cases 1999 and the connected matters. This ndustries Vs. State of M.P.} petition are similar to that of the points s and the same.have been decided by of Madhya Pradesh. It issubmitted that writ petitions, the Division Bench has '('ft^^M) XI-HC-22 S^anqT^pT, aiTn^'ls, [sioiuy .,,.,^.>'5:^^<//??_ HI*<CTI niHich """"""" """")H^ ~20<- sn^T^r R-il'hSD^TT sbwicbfff^cT (a)"There is a differen|c namely, stamp duty| (b)The State Legistaf provide the rates read with Entry Schedule oftheCoi] (c) There is no discrijnination relating to immova|?le stamp duty under | because it is sit'uat similar property is on the ground it is (d)/Section 75 <yF ths proviso to Section effect from the dat forcej.e; 25/01/19^4 (e) The retroaetivity w( the persons'who would 'b®fiable tol persons who have| would not be entitleld In view of the submission^ State and, particularty the fact thf •=ni<ifa<fl-< •<iiciTfftel<!l <Rltril< ^aTf^ffsn^T fce between the-two concepts, and rate ofduty; ture has the competence to if stamp duty as per Entry 63 4 of List-111 of the Seventh istitution; because a document property isjiable to extra Section 75 of the 1993 Act ed within the block whereas a lot liable to. excess duty sotely sifuated within the Municipal 993 Act is intra vires and the 75 is to be given retrospectiye e when Section 75 came into t; and >uld have limited effect so that lave not paid the stamp duty pay under the proviso but the paid under the main provision to refund," made by the counsei appearing for ths f this matter is squarely covered by the ('fl^^^) /t .;••: XI-HC-22 3^'R(PTT?raT, SFtftOTS, (qclldy 3ll^|4aqi, .^.f::..^J.9.. *11*<CTI »>11<h u^r200 sn^rw f^riasn^r saiii'B uRn »'<lt>» aii^id^wiWdfitr 3 - decision of the Division Bench petitionstands finally disposed of| The security amount, if a^ be no orderastOjposts. q>l<ltc1<n-t1WCTTffteIfl'<Rl«;l< ^sri^iTsn^r c|f High Court of Wladhya Pradesh, this 1/i/ith the obssryations quoted above. (y, deposited, be refunded. There shall sd/- 'r Acting ChiefJustice .. .! SdA Sunil Kumar Sinha :~-- :Judge &>" (<i^^M) \v