Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2004 of 2001 (Old No.38307 of 1997) State of U.P. and others …….. Petitioners Versus The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P., Allahabad and Others. …….. Respondents ……………….. Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State/petitioners. Sri Siddartha Sah for the respondent Nos.3 & 4. Date: July 31,2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.3.1997 passed by Collector, Nainital in case No.52/15 of 1995-96 and order dated 16.05.1996 passed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Allahabad in Stamp Revision No.291/96-97, contained in Annexure Nos. 4 & 6 respectively to the writ petition. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the State Government executed an instrument of lease in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 on 8.6.1995 in respect of large area of land measuring 8.8 acres in Tehsil Kashyakutauli and Betalghat, Tarai East Forest Division, Nainital. By means of said instrument a mining lease was granted to respondent Nos.3 & 4 for a period of 3 years which commenced with effect from 11.4.1995 on consideration of Rs. 17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lacs) for mining of sand, bajri and boulders etc. The said instrument was presented for registration in the office of Sub Registrar, Nainital on 08.6.1995. The sub Registrar was of the opinion that the said instrument was chargeable to stamp duty under item No.35 of Schedule I-B of Indian Stamp Act. He, accordingly, referred the matter to the Collector on 08.6.1995. The Collector considered the matter and by order dated 16.05.1996 rejected the reference made by Sub Registrar. The petitioner No.2 challenged the said order by filing a revision under Section 56(2) of Indian Stamp Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The revisional court also rejected the revision upholding the order of Collector by the impugned order dated 31.3.1997. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the courts below. I am of the opinion that both the courts below have acted within jurisdiction and committed no error of law. The courts below have rightly held that no additional stamp duty is chargeable on the instrument in question. The matter is concluded by finding of fact. The impugned order does not require any interference by this Court. 4. The writ petition, being devoid of merit is dismissed. (P.C. Verma,J.) 31.07.2008 P.Singh 2