SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(P&H) 366

T.H.B.CHALAPATHI
Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent


Judgment

T.H.B.Chalapathi, J.

1. The petitioners obtained Industrial Plots on lease from the Punjab State Small Industries Corporation, Chandigarh. The said leasedeeds are for a period of 99 years. These lease deeds were executed and registered at the office of Sub Registrar, Bhatinda on 17.6.1978. Thereafter, the Naib Tehsildar served notices on the petitioners on 18.11.1980 demanding each of the petitioners, to pay a sum of Rs. 2922/- as stamp duty and Rs. 983/- as registration fee. Questioning the notices, issued by the Tehsildar cum Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Bhatinda under Section 68 of the Punjab Revenue Act , the petitioners filed this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that once the lease deed is registered, there is no provisions in stamp Act, which enables the authorities to recover the deficit stamp duty and registration fee. He has further contended that is not a case where recovery was ordered by the Collector under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act (for short the Act). Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab contended that during audit it was found that the lease deeds were not stamped according to the provisions of the Indian Sta


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top