( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4520/2009 (Pankaj R. Dubey -vs- State of Mah. and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 7, 2009. 1) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14/10/2009 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps (Appellate Authority Amravati) on an appeal under Sec.32 (B) of Bombay Stamps Act, 1958 and order dated 07/07/2009 by which Joint District Registrar (respondent No.3) demanded stamp duty on the document tendered for adjudication. 2) The facts are not in dispute. Plot No.C-43/2 from Amravati Industrial Area was given by respondent No.5 M.I.D.C. initially to Smt.Nitu Vinod Dubey. Vide order dated 26th May, 2009 the said plot was transferred to petitioner and in terms thereof the document was to be entered into between parties. The draft deed (copy dated 16/06/2009) was forwarded for adjudication of stamp duty. On 07/07/2009 respondent No.3 demanded stamp duty of Rs. 3,74,325/- and said demand was challenged in Appeal No. 10/2008-09/2022-23/2009 under Sec.32 (B) of Bombay Stamp Act by petitioners. The Appellate Authority viz. respondent No.2 has reduced the demand to Rs.3,43,050/-. ( 2 ) 3) Advocate Shri Gupta for petitioner contends that the agreement for adjudication was not an agreement of lease but an agreement to lease. He relies upon Clause-3 of the agreement to show that if certain conditions were fulfilled in future, the lease deed was to be executed. He has relied upon the judgments reported in 1994 Vol.2, SCC 497; State of Maharashtra and others -vs- Atur India Pvt. Ltd. and 1999 Vol.5 SCC 708; ICICI -vs- State of Maharashtra and others to substantiate his contention. In the alternative he has also relied upon the Notification of Remission of Stamp Duty issued on 12th June, 2007 to urge that the demand for stamp duty on said document is unsustainable. 4) Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. has relied upon reply affidavit dated 24/11/2008. He points out that the exemption or remission notification placed on record is not in relation to industry of petitioner. He has handed over the correct copy to this Court. He points out that the document placed for adjudication is not a lease deed but transfer of lease covered by Article 60 of Sch.I of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. He states that the agreement nowhere states that petitioner is not to get any interest in the property or is not a demise in present. 5) With the assistance of learned Advocate, I perused the papers. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in State of Maharashtra and others -vs- Atur India Pvt. Ltd. particularly its para-24 points out difference between agreement to lease and an agreement of lease. The subsequent judgment reported in ICICI -vs- State of Maha- rashtra & others considers the document in the light of this ( 3 ) distinction and para-3 of this judgment shows that Clause-2 and Clause-3 of said agreement before Hon’ble Apex Court revealed that it was not a demise in present and a lease deed was contemplated in future. As per clause-7 till then only a right to use (licence) was allowed in favour of the other side. 6) The present document produced before me does not contain any such term or condition. The learned A.G.P. has rightly pointed out that it is not a document executed by respondent No.5 in favour of petitioner. He points out that said document is tripartite arrangement and Smt.Nitu Dubey is also party to it. It therefore follows that Article 36 of Sch.I is not applicable to this document. It is therefore also clear that notification of remission dated 12th June, 2007 which exempts a lease deed under Article 36 is not attracted and Article 60 which deals with transfer of lease by way of assignment is therefore applicable. 7) I, therefore, find that no case is made out warranting any interference in the present writ petition. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Khunte.