IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2211 of 2008. Vinay Kumar Sharma, S/O Shri Shiv Prasad Sharma, R/O H.No. S- 130, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL, Haridwar, District Haridwar. .... Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Revenue, Government of Uttarakhand, Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents. WITH Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2212 of 2008 Jitendra Kumar Sharma, S/O Shri R.K. Sharma, R/O H.No. T-28, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL, Haridwar, District Haridwar. .... Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Revenue, Government of Uttarakhand, Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and others. Respondents. Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder of the State for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. Sri V.K.Kohli, Senior Advocate, with Sri T.C.Pande, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. Date December 22, 2008. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since the controversy involved in both the writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these petitions are being decided by this common order. In both the writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16-1-2002 passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act 1899 (for short the Act) 2 by the respondent no.3 (Assistant Commissioner Stamps, Haridwar) as well as the order dated 20-11-2008 passed under Section 56 of the Act by the respondent no. 2 (Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Camp Dehradun) in revisions filed by the petitioners. Relevant facts, giving rise to the present writ petitions, in brief are that the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (for short Parishad) had executed separate sale deeds in favour of the petitioners, which have been annexed as Annexure-6 to each writ petition. The plot area of the sale deed in each case has been used for house construction. In the sale deed, averment was made to the effect that the conveyance deed is being executed on the land owned by the Parishad. Although it is not disputed as well as there is a reference in the deed also that there existed constructed houses on the plot at the time of execution of sale deed and the same were constructed under self financing scheme. The background, in short, is that initially the land belonged to the Bharat heavy Electricals Limited, Haridwar (BHEL). The land was taken back from the B.H.E.L. by the State Government and land measuring 185 Acres was transferred to the Parishad, out of which in 62 Acres of land, houses were to be constructed for solving the residential problems of the B.H.E.L. employees. The sale deeds were registered in the office of Sub Registrar Haridwar. In pursuance to the order of Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) Haridwar, a reference was made under Section 47-A of the Act by the Sub Registrar and a case was registered before the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) Haridwar. Notices were issued to the petitioners. Objections have been filed by the petitioners, wherein it is stated that the houses were constructed under the self- financing scheme, which has floated by B.H.E.L. Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Ranipur. The Parishad was to charge only the cost of the plots from the petitioners and the Parishad was not the owner of the houses. At the time of execution of sale-deed, the land belonged to the 3 Parishad, which was transferred in favour of the petitioners by separate sale deed in each writ petition (Annexure-6). The learned Assistant Commissioner Stamps, Haridwar on the basis of the material on record, ultimately, held that the construction of houses was made on the land prior to transfer of land, therefore, the petitioners were liable to pay stamp duty on the value of the house in addition to the cost of land. By the impugned order dated 16-1-2000, the petitioner in each has been ordered to pay deficient stamp duty and registration fee as well as penalty, as mentioned in the order. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners preferred revision separately before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Camp Dehradun. The learned Commissioner by his order dated 20-11-2008 dismissed the revisions of the petitioners on the ground that on the date of execution of sale deed, there were houses existing on the land. If the houses were constructed subsequent to the date of execution of sale deed under the self-financing scheme, then the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of stamp duty. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions is similar to that of the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1098 of 2006 Alok Aggarwal Vs. State of Uttaranchal and two others, which has been decided along with two other writ petitions by a common order, and the present writ petitions are squarely covered by the order dated 18-12-2008 passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that the order passed under Section 47-A of the Act and the order passed by the revisional authority under Section 56 of the Act have been quashed. Learned counsel has urged that the present writ petitions may be decided in terms of the said order. Learned Brief Holder, Sri Sudhir Kumar, appearing on behalf of the State has fairly conceded to this fact. 4 I have also perused the order dated 18-12-2008 passed in and I find that the facts of the present writ petitions are almost identical to the facts of the petition referred to above and controversy involved in the present writ petitions stands resolved by the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1098 of 2006 Alok Aggarwal Vs. State of Uttaranchal and two others, which has been decided along with two other writ petitions by a common order. It has It has been held that the stamp duty was not payable on the cost of constructions of houses, which were constructed under the self financing scheme and money was contributed by the petitioners. Ultimately, all the three writ petitions were allowed. The impugned orders passed by Up Zila Adhikari/Sub Divisional Officer Haridwar and the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Camp Dehradun (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) were set aside. Therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be allowed in terms of the order dated 18-12-2008 passed in the said writ petition. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed on merits in terms of order dated 18-12-2008, passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1098 of 2006, Alok Aggarwal Vs. State of Uttaranchal and two others. The impugned orders dated 16-1-2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Stamp Haridwar under Section 47-A of the Act and dated 20-11-2008 passed by the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, under Section 56 of the Act are set aside. No order as to costs. (B.S. Verma,J.) RCP