Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—The controversy involved in this writ petition is as to whether determination of the market value is dependent upon limited rights enjoyed by the owner in the property.

In order to determine this controversy, certain facts are required to be noted, which are as follows :

Bungalow No. 19-A, Elgin Road, Allahabad was taken on rent by the father of the petitioner in the year 1939 on a monthly rent of Rs. 184/- per month. The property also consisted of a cottage which was leased out to Sri J.S. Gupta on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- per month. The property was owned by one Sri Har Mohan Das Tandon. The landlord vide two letters dated 2.9.1966 and 10.9.1966 agreed to sell the above noted property to petitioner No. 1 or his nominee for a total consideration of Rs. One lac. As per the said agreement, Rs. 5,000/- was paid by petitioner No. 1 to the landlord as advance towards part sale consideration and remaining amount was to be paid by the petitioners at the time of execution and registration of the sale-deed.

2. The property has two super structures which are existing on the leased land. The lease of the land from Government was renewed on a freehold basis in favour of the landlord on 19.6.2000. On landlord’s failure to execute the sale-deed in favour of petitioner No. 1 resulted in filing of a suit being Suit No. 516 of 2000 for specific performance in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad. A compromise was arrived at between the parties. As per compromise, the petitioner No. 1 agreed to release part of the land from the contract and landlord agreed to execute the sale-deed for two houses with 7818 Sq. meters. The compromise was effected on 12.10.2010, which resulted in execution of new agreement to sell which was registered on 12.10.2010. In pursuance of the said compromise, a decree was passed by the Civil Court, Allahabad on 16.11.2010. A conveyance deed was executed by the landlord in favour of the petitioners and was registered by the registering authority on 29.11.2010.

3. An application was moved before the Collector, Allahabad, under Section 31 of the (Indian) Stamp Act, 1899 (in short as ‘the Act’) alongwith deed of conveyance for determination of the duty which was chargeable on the instrument. The stamp duty of Rs. 6,67,200/- was appended with the conveyance deed. Not being satisfied with the stamp duty, the Collector in his opinion found that the proper stamp duty has not been paid by the petitioners. The Assistant Stamp Collector issued a notice under Section 47-A/33 of the Act on 5.2.2011. Another notice was issued to petitioner No. 1 under Sections 47-A/33 of the Act informing him that there was a deficiency of Rs. 1,33,07,900/- in payment of the stamp duty, as such, he was asked to appear before the authority on 28.4.2011. The petitioner No. 1 filed detailed reply to the said notices. The Assistant Collector Stamps, Allahabad vide impugned order dated 6.1.2012 directed the petitioners to pay deficiency in the stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 1,34,14,930/- under Section 47-A)(1)/40(1B) and a penalty of Rs. 27,00,000/-. The petitioners were further directed to pay 1.5% monthly interest on the aforesaid deficient amount of stamp duty till the date of payment.

4. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority at Allahabad by filing Stamp Appeal No. 996 of 2011-12. The appeal was rejected by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Allahabad vide his order dated 8.10.2012. It is under these circumstances the present petition has been filed before this Court.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the determination of the market value was dependent upon the limited right enjoyed by the landlord in the premises. It was contended that the property in question was under the tenancy of the petitioners and one J.S. Gupta. These tenancies were protected under the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 197