Mr. Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. The present writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan; under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18th February, 2005, passed by the Revenue Board, Ajmer whereby the Board of Revenue has allowed the Revision filed by the respondent Mr. Arun Kumar Mittal, holding that the document in question does not fall within the definition of transfer of lease by way of assignment.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that a firm M/S Rajasthan Hume Pipes Manufacturing Company (hereinafter referred to as RHPMC or the firm) having three partners, namely Shri Devaki Nandan having 50% share, Shri Hari Om Mittal having 25% share and Smt. Bina Mittal having 25% share, were having lease hold rights of 5409 square meters land in the RIICO, Industrial Area, Bundi, in relation whereof, a registered lease agreement dt.26.9.79 came to be executed.

3. Shri Hari Om Mittal retired from the firm on 31.3.91 leaving behind two partners; namely Smt. Bina Mittal & Shri. Devaki Nandan, however on the very next date i.e. 1/4/1991, Mr. Arun Kumar Mittal and Ms. Dipika Mittal were inducted in the partnership firm and partnership thus became a firm of four partners namely Shri Devaki Nandan, Smt. Bina Mittal, Shri. Arun Kumar Mittal and Dipika Mittal. On 31.3.92, the firm consisting of above referred four partners, stood dissolved and Arun Kumar Mittal became the sole Proprietor of the said firm 'RHPMC' and acquired all assets & liabilities of the Firm.

4. The respondent, sole proprietor of RHPMC in the year 2004 approached RIICO and requested to execute a supplementary lease deed in his favour (Mr.Arun Kumar Mittal) being the sole Proprietor of the concern namely M/S Rajasthan Hume Pipes Manufacturing Company.

5. RIICO, vide office Order No.1 dt.15-4-2004 gave approval for such change of name of the partners and pursuant thereto an amendment lease dt.19-4-2004 came to be executed, whereby in place of name of three partners of the firm name of Arun Kumar Mittal, the respondent, was substituted.

6. When the supplementary lease deed dt. 19th April, 2004 was produced for registration, the Sub-Registrar referred it to the Collector(Stamp) for determining its correct nature as contemplated under section 47A of Indian Stamp Act, read with Rajasthan Stamp (Adaption) Act, 1952 which the proceedings continued under Section 53 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, brought in force w.e.f 27.5.2004.

7. The Collector (Stamp) vide order dated 25-8-2004, answered the reference and held that the document in question is a transfer of lease by way of assignment, interalia observing that original lease deed executed by RIICO on 26.9.79 was in the name of Rajasthan Hume Pipe consisting of three partners, whereas by way of the alleged supplementary/amendment lease deed, the property is being conveyed/transferred in favour of Mr. Arun Kumar Mittal, who was not even a partner in the firm.

8. The respondent preferred a Revision petition before Board of Revenue, Ajmer, which came to be allowed by the Board vide an order dated 18th February, 2005. While allowing the Revision petition filed by the respondent No.1, the Board of Revenue observed in para 6 & 7 as under:

^^lu~ 1991 esa eSllZ jktLFkku gzwe ikbZIl eSU;wQSDpfjax dEiuh] uSuok jksM+] cwUnh ds pkj Hkkxhnkj nsodh uUnu fery Jherh chuk fery] dq0 nhfidk fery rFkk v:.k dqekj fery FksA izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds vuqlkj buesa ls rhu ikfjokfjd lnL;ksa us nsodhuUnu & firk] chuk fery&pkph] nhfidk&cfgu us viuk gd v:.k dqekj fery dks ns fn;k Fkk rFkk v:.k dqekj fery fnuakd 31-03-1992 ls mijksDr QeZ ds ,d ek= ekfyd gks x;s o jhdks us fnuakd 26-09-1979 dks fy[kh yhtMhM dk la'kksf/kr MhM ekudj fnuakd 15-04-2004 dks fu"ikfnr dj fn;k] ftls jftLV~h ds fy, is'k fd;k x;kA mDr yhtMhM r; dh xbZ Fkh] og cnyh ugha xbZA yhtMhM dh 'krsZ Hkh ogh jgh] flQZ ySlh dk uke cnyk x;k] tks ewy Hkkxhnkj nsodhuUnu dk yM+dk gSA eqnzkad vf/kfu;e ds rgr nLrkost dh izd`fr r;