Judgment :

A.K. SIKRI, J.- Leave granted.

2. Eleven agreements for sale were executed in favour of the petitioner herein. In each of these agreements a part of land comprising area 0.385 ha, falling in Khasra No. 25 situated in Village Mahua Kheda, Tehsil Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand was sought to be purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner had also paid earnest money of varying amounts against the total consideration which was agreed to in each of the agreements. For example, in one agreement dated 4-12-2007, total consideration mentioned was Rs. 24,70,000 and at the time of signing the agreement for sale, an advance amount of Rs 6,15,000 was paid. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid as stamp duty on this deed of agreement of sale. In a similar manner, other 10 agreements were also presented for registration, paying a sum of Rs. 10,000 as stamp duty on each of them.

3. The Deputy Registrar concerned impounded all these documents as he felt that the documents were not sufficiently stamped. Matter was referred by him to the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp and Registration) for adjudication of proper stamp duty and to recover deficit stamp duty from the petitioner. Notices were issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp and Registration) and an enquiry was conducted. After receiving his objections, the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp and Registration) passed the orders holding that the stamp duty paid on these documents was deficient. In each of the cases, he directed the petitioner to make up for the deficit stamp duty along with penalty imposed as well as interest. For example, in respect of document illustrated above, the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs. 1,44,375 as deficient stamp duty and Rs. 70,000 as penalty with interest. Similar orders were passed in other ten cases.

4. Challenging these orders, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital which was, however, dismissed by an order dated 10-3-2011. That order was challenged by filing writ petitions in the High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital which have met the same fate insofar as the issue regarding deficient stamp duty was concerned. However, partial relief1 was given to the petitioner modifying the orders of the Deputy Registrar, inasmuch as deficient stamp duty was worked out at Rs. 88,800 and not Rs. 1,44,375. On this amount reduced penalty of 15% was imposed i.e. Rs. 13,320.

5. Similar corrections were made in other writ petitions insofar as exact quantum of deficit stamp duty was concerned and the writ petitions were allowed partly to this extent.

6. Undeterred and unsatisfied with the aforesaid outcome, present special leave petitions are filed invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, impugning the aforesaid verdict dated 29-9-2011 of the High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital.

7. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:

“Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the agreement for sale had been cancelled within a period of two months from the date of execution of agreement for sale coupled with the fact that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner on the point of imposition of penalty, this Court is of the opinion that to meet the ends of justice, penalty be imposed at the rate of 15% of the deficit stamp duty. This order shall not be treated as a precedent for other cases.”

8. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in all these cases, referred to the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and 10 of the Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Stamp Act”), on the basis of which her submission was that at the time of agreement to sell, stamp duty is not payable at all. She further argued that in the instant cases, the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) had adjudicated the matter under Sections 33/38 of the Act which was clearly illegal as the