The definition of 'immovable property' includes both land and building, and stamp duty has to be charged accordingly.

ORDER :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of Board of Revenue (for short “BOR”) dated 18.05.1998 in Revision Petition No. 93/95/STAMP/JAIPUR, whereby the BOR set aside the stamp duty levied on the construction attached to the leased land, the present petition has been filed under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts of the case, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that a lease deed was executed on 17.01.1991 between Respondent No. 2-RIICO and M/s Badaya Industries through its proprietor Shri Meghraj Khandelwa for industrial plot no. F-972-A, Road No. 14, Industrial Area, VKI Area, Jaipur (herein after referred to as “the plot”). Thereafter, a deed of partnership was executed between Shri Meghraj Khandelwal and Respondent No.1-Shri Govind Khandelwal on 14.12.1991 and the M/s Badaya Industries was structured as a partnership firm with Shri Meghraj Khandelwal having 51% shares and Respondent No.1-Shri Govind Khandelwal having 49% shares. The permission for change in constitution of firm M/s Badaya Industries was also sought and allowed by RIICO vide letter dated 31.01.1992 and a lease deed agreement for correction was accordingly executed on 04.11.1992. Thereafter, the newly constituted partnership firm was again modified when Respondent No.1-Shri Govind Khandelwal acquired the 51% shares of outgoing partner Shri Meghraj Khandelwal. Respondent No.1-Shri Govind Khandelwal now became the sole proprietor of the aforesaid firm and the name of the firm was changed from M/s Badaya Industries to M/s Dangayach Agro Industries. A new lease agreement dated 15.06.1994 was also executed between Respondent No.1-Shri Govind Khandelwal and Respondent No.2-RIICO, now the sole proprietor of M/s Dangayach Agro Industries, for the plot in question, on which a building was also constructed. The said lease agreement dated 15.06.1994 was submitted before Sub-Registrar Jaipur for its registration on 18.06.1994, who sent it to the D.I.G. (Registrations) and Ex-officio Collector (Stamps), Jaipur under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1908, as adopted in State of Rajasthan. The Sub-Registrar, before impounding the lease agreement, inspected the plot and found that the construction on the plot was not shown in the map and accordingly, after assessing valuation of land, levied stamp duty of Rs. 1,38,964/-and registration fee of Rs. 5,000/-. Since the Respondent No.1-Shri Govind Khandelwal had only deposited stamp duty of Rs. 36,000/-and registration fee of Rs. 2,000/-, a notice was issued to the respondent for the differential amount and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Respondent No.1-Shri Govind Khandelwal, the petitioner maintained the levy of additional stamp duty and registration fee vide order dated 12.01.1995. The said order was successfully assailed by the Respondent No.1-Shri Govind Khandelwal before the BOR, who vide its impugned order dated 18.05.1998, set aside the order dated 12.01.1995.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the conclusion of the BOR that the valuation could not have included the valuation of construction is erroneous and against the settled position of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:

3.1) That Circular No. 8/95 dated 21.03.1995, issued by office of Inspector General (Registration) & Stamp Department, Government of Rajasthan, clearly states that if a land which was allotted on lease by RIICO is subsequently transferred and if some construction or industry is also existing on such plot, then in addition to the rate of land, market value of the construction should also be included for the purpose of stamp duty.

3.2) That the BOR failed to appreciate the definition of ‘immovable property’ as contained in Section 2(6) of The Registrations Act, 1908, which includes land, building, hereditary allowance, etc. and definition of ‘conveyance’ as contained in Sect