1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order No.CCRAI/4304/06, dated 19.2.2008 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner & Inspector General-3rd respondent confirming the order No.G1/2447/2004, dated 28.2.2006 passed by the Collector & District Registrar-4th respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been asked to pay the stamp duty on the aggregate amount of the agreement dated 31-3-2004.

2. Facts, in brief, are: -

The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Executive Engineer (R & B) Division, Tenali, Guntur District-1st respondent issued notice in Feb/March 2004 inviting bids for the right to collect toll tax for the bridge across Kommamuru Canal at K.M 8/0 of Tenali-Narakoduru Road in Guntur District from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2006. The petitioner became the successful bidder and respondents 1 and 2 accepted his bid. As per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs.14,58,452/-towards deposit, which shall be adjusted towards the last installment. The total amount the petitioner was required to pay for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2006 towards premium was Rs.87,50,700/-. The petitioner presented the agreement for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chebrole, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District. An amount of Rs.2,91,591/- came to be collected towards stamp duty. The document came to be registered on 2-4-2004. The petitioner operated the toll gate pursuant to the agreement dated 31-3-2004. While so, the 2nd respondent issued Memo No.11966/T & P.3/TA.3/2004-06, dt.8.10.2005 to the 1st respondent instructing him to address the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.2,18,884/- towards deficit stamp duty. Thereupon, the 1st respondent issued letter bearing No. Toll Gate/TNK Road/A3/03, dt.7.11.2005 calling upon him to pay deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fee to the Sub-Registrar.

2(b) The petitioner filed W.P.No.24577 of 2005 questioning the letter bearing No. Toll Gate/TNK Road/A3/03, dt.7.11.2005. The said writ petition came to be allowed setting aside the proceedings and leaving open to the 4th respondent to take necessary steps in terms of Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Thereupon, the 4th respondent issued Notice in G-1/2447/2004, dt.28.2.2006 calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.2,18,784/- towards the alleged stamp duty and registration fee of Rs.14,640/- within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

2(c) The petitioner filed revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner & Inspector General-3rd respondent. The revision filed by the petitioner ended in dismissal on 19-2-2008. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order passed by the revisional authority, which reads as hereunder:-

“Lease and licence: A lease is defined in Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 as “a lease of immovable property is a transfer of right to enjoy such property made for a certain time expressed or implied or in perpetuity in consideration of price paid or promised or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value to be rendered periodically or on occasions to be transferor is called lessor, the transferee is lessee. The price is called premium and the money share, service or other things so to be rendered are called the rent”.

A “licence” is defined under Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 as “ a right to do, to continue to do, or upon the immovable property of the grantor, some thing which would in the absence such right, be unlawful and such right does not amount to an easement or interest in the property”.

In summary the distinction between a licence and lease is that a licence does not create any estate or interest in the property to which it relates while a lease does.

In view of the above statutory provision and the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble High Court, the conten