Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (in short “UPSIDC”) is the owner of plot No. 46/1, Site - IV, Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. UPSIDC on 28.4.2001 on the request of the petitioner, a charitable trust, granted it a license to construct and run a school over the aforesaid plot. Petitioner in accordance with the map sanctioned by the Ghaziabad Development Authority constructed a building and started running a school over the aforesaid land. Subsequently, UPSIDC executed a registered deed dated 18.2.2003 transferring the aforesaid land on lease in favour of the petitioner. On the said lease deed petitioner duly paid stamp duty in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act (in short ‘Act’).

2. The aforesaid lease was subjected to determination of market value for the purposes of levying proper stamp duty and accordingly proceedings were drawn under the Act whereupon an order was passed on 15.6.2004 by the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition), Irrigation, Ghaziabad determining the market value of the property by adding the value of the building also to the value of the land and accordingly direction for payment of deficient stamp duty so determined with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month was issued. Petitioner’s revision against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P., Allahabad vide order dated 18.8.2009. Hence, petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the above two orders.

3. I have heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel. The affidavits exchanged between the parties have also been perused by me and with the consent of the parties the matter has been heard finally.

4. Impugning the above orders, Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only land was leased out under the lease dated 18.2.2003. The building belongs to the petitioner and, as such, it was not part of the lease and therefore its value cannot be included in the value of the land leased out while determining the market value of the leased property.

5. The Standing Counsel has defended the impugned order by saying that the lease is in respect of both the land and the building and even if the lease is in respect of the only land, as the building is permanently attached to it it will be deemed to have been leased out alongwith the land.

6. Admittedly, the land was acquired by the State of U.P. for the public purpose for the benefit of UPSIDC. On due acquisition, UPSIDC developed the aforesaid acquired land and the plot in dispute was carved out. The said plot was initially allotted and then leased out by UPSIDC in favour of M/s Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. vide lease deed dated 19.2.1997 but the said lease was determined on 6.3.2001 whereupon, on the request of the petitioner UPSIDC agreed to lease out the same for the purpose of a school in favour of the petitioner. However, as the execution of the lease was likely to take some time, the petitioner under the agreement dated 28.4.2001 was permitted to use the said land and to start construction of the school building. It is in furtherance thereof, when the school building was constructed, the lease in dispute was executed.

7. The agreement dated 28.4.2001 under which the aforesaid plot of land was permitted to be used by the petitioner for the purposes of constructing and running a school as well as the lease deed dated 18,.2.2003 are on record. I have gone through both the above documents. The lease deed specifically states that pursuant to the agreement petitioner completed the building to the satisfaction of the UPSIDC on the plot. It further provides that the petitioner shall be at liberty to remove and appropriate to himself all his buildings, erections and structures made by him and all his materials thereof within three months of the date of expiration or determination of the lease,