Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. P. SINGH
MOHAMMAD ALI - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE, ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 633 Of 1979
Decided On : 02/17/1987
STAMP ACT - LEASE - SECTION 2(16)(C), SECTION 35(B), SCHEDULE I-B, ITEM 5(C) - AGREEMENT TO LET TOLLS - STAMP DUTY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the highest bidder in an auction for the Tahbazari (market fees) of a town market, executed a deed of agreement with the Town Area Committee. The Stamp Inspector detected that the agreement was deficiently stamped and reported the petitioner to pay the deficient stamp duty and fine. The petitioner challenged the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the Collector, Nainital, demanding the deficient stamp duty and fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the agreement was not a bid sheet but a lease of tolls, and therefore, it was subject to stamp duty under Section 35(B) of Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act. The court further held that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority did not err in determining the deficient stamp duty and fine.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement between the petitioner and the Town Area Committee was a bid sheet or a lease of tolls. 2. Whether the agreement was subject to stamp duty under Section 35(B) of Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 2(16)(C) of the Stamp Act, which defines "lease" to include "any instrument by which tolls of any description are let," and held that the agreement in question was a lease of tolls and not a bid sheet. 2. The court also interpreted Section 35(B) of Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act, which imposes stamp duty on leases, and held that the agreement was subject to stamp duty under this provision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority did not suffer from any patent error of law.
( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dated 8-12-1978 contained in Annexure 6 attached with the writ petition and also the order dated 18-1-1975 passed by the Collector, Nainital contained in Annexure 5 attached with the writ petition.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was the highest bidder and had offered Rs. 42,000/- as the Tahbazari in auction of Town Market at Kichha, Nainital for the period from 1st April, 1972 to 31st March, 1973. A deed of agreement was executed as is evident from the term of the deed contained in Annexure 1 attached with the writ petition.
( 3 ) IT appears that on the report of the Stamp Inspector it was detected that the deed of agreement contained in Annexure 1 attached with the writ petition was deficiently stamped. Therefore the deficient stamp to the tune of Rs. 2727. 25p. as well as the fine of Rs. 272-40p. was reported to be realised from the petitioner and information was sent by the Town Area Committee to the petitioner as is evident from Annexure 3 attached with the writ petition. The petitioner through his counsel Sri I. N. Tandon sent a reply to the Administrator, Town Area Committee asserting that the requisite stamp duty had been affixed upon the agreement and the agreement could not be termed as bond nor the deficient amount of stamp as indicated nor penalty could be realised from the petitioner. If any amount is taken the petitioner shall defend himself and would be legally entitled to recover costs from the Town Area. Annexure 5 is the order passed by the Collector, Nainital. Against the order of the Collector, Nainital the petitioner had preferred a revision petition which has been dismissed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority through Annexure 6. Aggrieved by the orders contained in Annexures 5 and 6 aforesaid the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
( 4 ) BEFORE me the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the term of the agreement contained in Annexure 1 is in the nature of bid-sheet and no stamp was required under the provisions of the law. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner if any stamp was needed it was duly affixed and it could not be more than the stamp of Rs. 2-50.
( 5 ) DURING the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1976 All WC 791 (2 ). Yaqub Khan v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and he has also referred to the rulings reported in 1972 All LJ 618 Mahabir Prasad v. Peer Bux and 1970 All LJ 570 B. C. Mohindra v. Municipal Board, Saharanpur.
( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to the provisions of S. 5 (c) of schedule I-B of the Stamp Act and it has been contended that the determination by the Stamp authorities regarding deficiency of the stamp on the deed contained in Annexure 1 attached with the writ petition is patently erroneous and deserves to be quashed.
( 7 ) I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and I have gone through the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also examined the provisions of S. 5 (c) of Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act.
( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority contained in Annexure 6 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed, is not acceptable to me in view of the observations made in the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and reported in 1976 All WC 791 (2) supra. In paragraph 19 of the aforesaid ruling the following observations have been made :-"in the instant case we are concerned with the lease of tolls, as defined in S. 2 (16) (c) of the Stamp Act. As stated earlier, lease included an instrument by which tolls of any description are let. The instrument includes every document by which any right or liabili
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
