Rajasthan High Court
Honble RAJESH BALIA & SUNIL KUMAR GARG, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 548 of 1998
Decided On : November 27, 2000
(2). The instrument, which is focus of attention in this appeal, reads as under:-
``SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE DEED
This Lease Deed is made on the 25th Day of March, 1988 BETWEEN MESSRS BHILWARA SPINNERS LIMITED, (hereinafter called the `Lessee), which expression shall unless excluded by or repugnant to the context, include his heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the FIRST PART and the Governor of State of Rajasthan hereinafter called the `Lessor), which expression shall unless excluded by or repugnant to the context includes his successors in office and permitted assigns of the SECOND PART.
Whereas the Lessor has granted the permission to transfer the lease hold rights in the land measuring 104 Bighas 08 Biswa (56 Acres approx.) in favour of the Lessee and the Lessee has agreed to accept the lease of a Plot of land as described in the Lease Deed dated 22.11.1968 which was executed by Erstwhile Messers Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., and which was registered at Sub Registrar Office Bhilwara on 25.11.1968.
Whereas in compliance of Notification No. P4/59/U/1/83 dt. 14.07.1983 the Lessee agrees to execute this Supplementary Lease Deed for the land 89 Bigha 03 Biswa (56 Acres Approx.)equivalent to 104 Bigha 08 Biswas situated in Industrial Area, Bhilwara and more parti- cularly described in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter called the Plot) upon the terms and conditions vide Notification dated 14.07.1983.
NOW THIS INDENTURE WITNESSES AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the Lessor agrees to let the said Plot and the Lessee agrees to accept the said Plot on lease for a balance period of SEVENTY TWO YEARS on rent. The Lessee shall have an option to renew the said lease for a further period of Ninety- nine years after expiry of the present terms of lease.
2. That the lessee shall be responsible for all the dues payable to the Lessor and to the other institutions.
3. That the Lessee agrees to abide by the directions issued from time to time by the State of Rajasthan.
4. That the lessee agrees to not to transfer the part of this Plot without the permission of the State Government.
5. That the Lessee shall utilise the said Plot of land for the Industrial use.
6. That the Lessee shall pay the stipulated rent of Rs. 1680/- (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Only) per year of the said plot to the Lessor.
IN WITNESS thereof the parties hereto have set respective hands on the dates mentioned against their signatures:
Witness
1. Sd/-
//seal//
sd/-
//seal//
Witness
Sd/-
//seal//
Signed for and on behalf
of the Governor,
State of Rajasthan
Sd/-
//seal//
Signed by the said Lessee
(3). THE CONTROVERSY - Revenue contends it to be an instrument of conveyance of properties comprised in Bhilwara unit owned by Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mill Ltd. (RSWM) which includes plant, machinery, buildings and fixtures alongwith lease hold rights in land on which factory is situated to respondent Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. hence Stamp Duty is payable as a conveyance and valorem on entire value of the property comprising all the aforesaid assets and not as a document of lease as it reads.
(4). The controversy had arisen in the facts and circumstances to the narrated briefly hereinafter and detailed in the order under appeal. The instrument in question described as supplementary lease in respect of 56 acres of land executed b
14. Mohd. Hussain vs. District Registrar (AIR 1964 AP 43)
1. Himmatlal Harilal Mehta vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1954 SC 403)
2. M.G. Abrol, Addl. Collector of Customs
5. A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs
6. Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (AIR 2000 SC 355).–Distinguished.
7. Thayyil Mammo vs. Kottiath Rammuni (AIR 1966 SC 337)
9. PMC Kunhiraman Nair vs. C.R. Naganatha Iyer (AIR 1993 SC 307).–Followed.
11. Himalaya House Co. vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (AIR 1972 SC 899)
12. Duncans Industries Limited vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (AIR 2000 SC 355)
3. M/s. Filterco vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
4. Shrikant Kashinath Jituri vs. Corporation of the City of Belgaum (1994 (6) SCC 572)
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.