Rajasthan High Court
Honble P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.
M/s. Bhilwara Spinners Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, Bhilwara and Another - Appellant
Versus
The Collector (Stamps), Bhilwara District, Bhilwara and Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1480 of 1997
Decided On : April 01, 1998
(2). Pursuant to the above application of 14.7.83, the State of Rajasthan through the Department of Industries, issued an order and notification dated 14.7.83 granting permission for grant of lease of land in favour of the petitioner Company M/s. Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. as lessee, inter alia, under rule 9 of the Rajas- than Industrial Area Allotment Rules, 1959 subject to certain conditions including the condition that the supplementary lease deed would be executed by the petitioner Company for the balance period of 72 years.
(3). Pursuant to the order of the State of Rajasthan dated 14.7.83, the said land was mutated in the revenue records by the Tehsildar, Bhilwara in favour of the peti- tioner Company. Thereafter on 25.3.88 a supplementary lease deed was executed between the petitioner Company and the Governor of the State of Rajasthan in the State. The said supplementary lease deed was registered by the Sub Registrar, Bhilwara (respondent no. 2) on 28.3.88. The supplementary lease deed was executed on condition that the lease is for the balance period of 72 years on rent. The lessee shall have an option of renewal of the said lease for further period of 99 years after expiry of the present term of lease. The lessee shall be responsible for all the dues payable to the lessor and to other institutions, that the lessee shall not transfer the part of the plot without the permission of the State Govt. The said plot of land shall be used for industrial use, that the lessee shall pay annual rent of Rs. 1680/- per year of the said plot to the lessor.
(4). On 29.3.88, the Sub-Registrar, Bhilwara (respondent No. 2) made a reference to the Court of Collector (Stamps), Bhilwara on the ground that the supplementary lease deed was mis-classified or mis-described and in fact, it is a fresh lease deed on which stamp duty was payable on the basis of the value of the land being leased which was estimated to be about 79 lacs. Thereafter on 22.4.88, the District Registrar of Bhilwara (respondents No. 3) made further application to the Court of Collector (Stamps) repeating the allegations made by the Sub-Registrar, Bhilwara in the earlier report dated 29.3.88 in so far as the nature of the document was concerned and submitted that the stamp duty be calculated and levied not on
7. Bharpet Mohammed Hussain Sahib vs. District Registrar (AIR 1964 AP 43)
1. Himmatlal Harilal Mehta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1954 SC 403)
2. M.G. Additional Collector of Customs
5. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (AIR 1983 SC 603)
6. A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs
10. P.M.C. Kunhiraman Nair vs. R. Naganatha Iyer (AIR 1993 SC 307)
3. M/s. Filterco vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
4. Srikant Kashinath Jituri vs. Corpn. of the City of Belgaum (1994)6 SCC 572).–Relied on.
9. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 Raj. 262)
11. Narotam Lal vs. Mohan Lal (AIR 1966 Raj. 89 = 1966 RLW 484)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.