IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.1263 of 2001. (Old CMWP No. 41798 of 2000) Smt. Neeru Kashyap, wife of Subhash Kasyap, resident of 20-E Race Course, Dehradun. … Petitioner. Vs. State and two others. … Respondents. Ms. Prabha Noliyal and Ms. Anjali Noliyal, Advocates for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. Date October 12, 2009. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned order. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 24-8-2000 passed by the Commissioner/C.C.R.A., Garhwal Division, Camp Dehradun, (Annexure No1) whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 12-5- 2000 passed by the Collector Stamps/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Dehradun, in Stamp Case No. 1 of 1999 State Vs. Smt. Neeru Kasyap, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act ( for short the Act), whereby the petitioner-opposite party was directed to make the deficiency good of stamp duty worth Rs. 1,06,800/- immediately as mentioned in the impugned order. 2 Briefly stated the facts are that the Sub Registrar Dehradun made a reference to the Collector Stamps that the document of sale of lease rights which was executed on 13-1-1999 in respect of plot nos. 877 and 878 in lieu of consideration of Rs. 2,00,000 be treated as sale of property instead of sale of lease hold rights. Accordingly, Stamp Case No. 1/1999 under Section 47-A of the Act was registered by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) Dehradun pertaining to postponed document/99 and notice was issued to the petitioner. Objections have been filed to the notice contending therein that the stamp duty was paid in accordance with law. Learned Additional District Magistrate after hearing the State as well as the petitioner gave a finding that the stamp duty has to be paid on the market value of the property, on the document as per rate of Article 23 of Schedule I-B of the Act, which was leased out and directed the petitioner to pay the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 1,06,800/- by his order dated 12-5-2000. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Dehradun, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner/C.C.R.A. under Section 56 of the Act. In the revision, grounds have been raised that on the document the stamp duty has to be paid as per rate of Article 63 of the Schedule I-B of the Act since only lease rights have been transferred, therefore, the provision of Section 47-A of the Act is not attracted. 3 The learned Commissioner after hearing the parties also held that the stamp duty is payable as per rate mentioned in Article 23 of the Act on the ground that under the lease deed, the right of sale was also given to the petitioner, but there is no deliberation on the issue whether on the document of sale of lease rights the stamp duty is payable as per rate of Article 63 of Schedule I-B of the Act. Extract of Article 63 of Schedule 1-B of the Act reads as under:- _________________________________________________________ Description of Instrument Proper Stamp-duty 63. TRANSFER OF LEASE The same duty as a by way of assignment, and Conveyance (No. 23 not by way of under-lease. [clause(a)]) for a consideration equal in the amount of the consideration for the transfer. _____________________________________________________ I have also perused the document filed by the parties. This fact is not disputed that by the document in question the lease rights have been soled out to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. As per Article 63 of Schedule I-B of the Act, if the lease rights are transferred by the document of sale, the stamp duty is payable on the consideration set forth in the lease deed as per rate of conveyance (No. 23 clause (a) of the Act and not as per market value as Section 47-A of the Act. The vendor also acquired the property on 17-1-1997 by way of lease which was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar in Bahi No. 1 Zild 498 at page 03 and additional Book No. 1 Zild 504 at page 363/374at No. 235 dated 22- 1-1997. The right which was acquired by the earlier lease 4 deed had been transferred to the petitioner. In any case, neither the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act are attracted to the case at hand. The findings recorded by the Collector of Stamps as well as Commissioner/CCRA are perverse findings since no reasoning has been given whether stamp duty is payable as per rate of Article 63 of Schedule I-B or not. For the reasons and discussion above, I am of the view that the stamp duty on the document of sale of lease rights has to be paid as per rate of Article 63 of Schedule I-B of the Act. Accordingly, the judgment and orders under challenge are liable to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed outright. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24-8-2000 passed by the Commissioner/CCRA and the order dated 12-5-2000 passed by the Collector of Stamps/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Dehradun are set aside. Costs easy. If any amount of stamp duty under the impugned orders has been deposited by the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to her within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue) Dehradun is directed to send the original document to the Sub Registrar Dehradun for its registration. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 5