IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1842 of 2006 Om Prakash S/O Shri Summar Singh, S/o S-126, Fourth Face, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL, Haridwar, Uttaranchal and 17 others. …. Petitioners. Vs. State of Uttarachal through Secretary Revenue, Government of Uttaranchal, Secretariat, Dehradun and six others. …. Respondents. Sri. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder of the State respondent nos. 1 to 5. Date January 06, 2009. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been preferred for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 12.12.2001 and 16.01.2002 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Stamps, Haridwar and the order dated 21.7.2005, passed by the Commissioner Garhwal Division. By the orders dated 12.12.2001 and 16.1.2002, the Assistant Commissioner of Stamps Haridwar has directed the petitioners to pay the deficit stamp duty along with deficit registration fee and penalty as mentioned in the orders impugned. By the order dated 21.7.2005, the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Camp Dehradun has dismissed as many as 24 revisions, by a common order. Relevant facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief are that petitioners are employees of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (for short BHEL) and in the year 1995, a scheme was initiated by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (for short Parishad) through BHEL Grah Nirman Samiti to get the houses of the employees constructed by the Parihad under the self financing scheme. The Parishad executed separate sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. A copy of sale – deed executed in favour of petitioner no. 1 has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The plot area of the sale deed 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 house on the plot at the time of execution of sale deed and the same was 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 Hairdwar. 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 was 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 Parishad, which was transferred in favour of the petitioners by separate sale deed. 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 12.12.2001 and 16.1.2002, the petitioners have been ordered to pay deficient stamp duty and registration fee as well as penalty, as mentioned in the orders impugned. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2002, revisions were preferred by different persons including most of the petitioners separately before the Commissioner by his common order dated 21. 7.2005 has dismissed as many as 24 stamp revisions 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 Uttarachal and two others, which has been decided along with two other writ petitions by a common order, and the present writ petition is 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 orde4r passed by the revisional authority under Section 56 of the Act have been quashed. Learned counsel has urged that the present writ petition may be decided in terms of the said order. Learned Brief Holder, Sri Sudhir Kumar, appearing on behalf of the State –respondent nos. 1 to 5 has fairly conceded to this fact. I have also perused the order dated 18.12.2008 passed in and I find that the facts of the present writ petition are almost identical to the facts of the petitions referred to above and controversy involved in the present writ petition stands resolved by the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1098 of 2006 Alok Aggarwal Vs. State of Uttarachal and two others, which has been decide along with two other writ petitions by a common order. 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, present writ petition is liable to be allowed in terms of the order dated 18.12.2008 passed in the said writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is 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 12.12.2001 and dated 16.1.2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Stamps Haridwar, under Section 47-A of the Act, by which petitioners were directed to make good deficiency of stamp duty and registration fee and to pay penalty, and also the order dated 21.7.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, under Section 56 of the Act are set aside. No order as to costs. RCP (B.S.Verma, J.)