1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1213/2010. Namdeo Vishwanath Umale -: versus :- The Member, Mah. Revenue Tribunal 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 : APRIL 27, 2010. This Court has on 12.03.2010 issued notice for final disposal looking to the nature of the controversy. Shri A.R. Ingole, learned counsel for petitioner argues that proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 120[C] of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 commenced some time in September, 2001 and in those proceedings petitioner filed reply on 21.09.2001. Thereafter an agreement of lease dated 08.09.1996 was produced for the first time before the Sub Divisional Officer. He therefore, contends that production of that document after September, 2001 is definitely after 01.05.2001 when amended provisions of Section 34[a][ii] of the Bombay Stamp Act came into force. He relies upon the judgment in the case of Krishna Sheena Shetty .vrs. Suresh Anant Sawant and othes (2008 2 [5] Mh.L.J. 117) to urge that the said amended provision is applicable from 01.05.2001 and it is also attracted in case of document executed prior to 01.05.2001, if those documents are produced after 01.05.2001. Shri S.V. Sohoni, learned counsel for respondent no.3 is opposing the petition. He argues that as document is dated 08.09.1996 and is admittedly not sufficiently stamped, the stamp duty applicable on 08.09.1996 is relevant and penalty therefore also needs to be determined as per law then in force. He therefore, contends that amended provision is not applicable. Learned A.G.P. adopts the argument of Shri Sohoni, learned counsel, and contends that the amended provision is not attracted and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has taken correct view of the controversy. Perusal of the judgment delivered by this Court clearly shows that this Court has found that the amended provision of Section 34[a][ii], which has come into force from 01.05.2001 is also applicable to the document executed prior to 01.05.2001. Here though the document is dated 08.09.1996, it has been produced after September, 2001 and therefore steps for impounding are required to be taken after September, 2001. Law in force on such date therefore is held to be relevant by this Court. I do not find anything to enable me to take view to the contrary. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment delivered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 16.02.2010 is unsustainable. The said judgment is accordingly quashed and set aside. The document shall be 3 dealt with in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 34[a][ii] of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958. With these directions, Writ Petition is allowed. Rule accordingly. However in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.