f $-* IN THE HIGH R,25. COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No. 10245 of 2009 V VARDHMAN PROPERTIES T TD .... PEtitiONET Through: Mr. Sanjay Goswami and Mr. H.K. Balaji, Advocates. ersus COLLECTOR OF STAMPS & ORS. Through: None. ..... Respondents AND R-26. -r VARDI{MAN PROPERTIES LTD. ..... Petitioner Tluough: IW. Sanjay Goswami and Mr. H.K. Balaii, Advocates. Versus COLLECTOR OF STAMPS & ORS .... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALTDHAR ORDER 0s.10.2010 L Botil these writ petitions, by the salne Petitiorrer, challenge certificates dated 2"d Marc'h 20Q9 issued by the Respondent No.1 determining the transfer duty payable on the two perpetuai leases granted to the Petitioner in "h respect of two plots at the Bawana Industrial Cornplex. W.P,(C) Nos. 70245 & rc246 of 2009 Page 7 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ft f + 2. The Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of tlris Cogrt rn Vardltman Properties Ltd. v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi 2007 AIR (Deltti) 214 which held that "the transfer duty hast to be computed on the basis of 1/6tl' of the rent payable at present for the first 30 years period but computed for the first 50 years." The Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporutiort of Delhi v. N. /(. Guptu 151 (2008) DLT 505 (DB) while affinning the decision of tire learned Single Judge held that the word 'isnt' in"Section L47(2)(b)(v) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 V would not include the premium paid for the lease. Although against the said judgnent of the Division Bench appeals are stated to have been filed in the Supreme Court by the MCD, which are pending, there is atlrrittedly no interirn order passed by the Supreme Court staying the operation of the said judgment of the Division Bench. 3. I{aving heard learned counsel for the Petitioner this Court is of the view that both the writ petitions are ftrlly covered by the decision of the Division C gedch in Murt'icipal Corporatiort of Delhi v. lV K. Gupta. Consequently, the certificates dated 2nd March 2009 issued by Respondent No.l in each writ petition is hereby quashed. Since the demands raised irr terms of the impugned certificate have been paid by the Petitioners under protest, it is directed that the Respondents will recalculate the transfer duty payable in tenns of the above jucigment of this Court and refund the balance amorurt to the Petitioners within a period of eight weeks together with sirnple interest at the rate of 6%per annum from the date of filing of the writ petitions i.e. 18u' July 2009 till the date of payment. W.P.(c) Nos. L0245 & 10246 of 2009 Page 2 of 3 I \' 4. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. ocroBER 05, 2010 dn S. MURALIDHAR, J t> ^ rl W.P.(C) Nos. 70245 & 70246 of 2009 Page 3 of 3