Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Ms. Soumya Srivastava and Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsels for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 6.12.2001 and 28.9.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2; respectively, in a matter arising out of the proceedings initiated under Section 33/47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Brief facts relevant to decide the controversy at hands are that a registered agreement for levy of Toll Tax over Toll bridge namely Ambala-Saharanpur-Mussoorie Road new Hindan Bridge near Gagalheri, District Saharanpur was executed in favour of the petitioners, partners of the firm known as M/s Lekhraj and others for a period of one year in view of settlement of auction for Rs. 1,00,03,100/-. The stamp duty of Rs. 5,50,192.50/- was paid by the petitioners thereon. The letter dated 7.11.1988 handing over charge for levy of Toll Tax was issued in favour of the petitioners by the Public Works Department. After execution of the contract, the petitioners started collection of Toll Tax from 10.11.1988 and made collections upto November, 1989.

3. Much after the expiry of the period of the said agreement, a notice was issued to the petitioners by the respondent No. 2 stating therein that the stamp duty paid by them on the said agreement was insufficient and as such they were liable to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty. Objection dated 25.3.1992 was filed by the petitioners with the assertions therein that the stamp duty leviable as per Article 35(a) of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable in the State of U.P., had been paid by them. No further duty and penalty, therefore, could be imposed.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the agreement in question was a lease for a period of one year, the stamp duty leviable thereon was, as such, governed by the provisions of Article 35(a)(i) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in the State of U.P. {Scheduled 1-B of U.P. Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1962} (herein after referred as to the ‘Stamp Act’).

5. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the lease was for a term not exceeding one year, the ratio of Full Bench of this Court in Gajey Pal Singh and another v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad, 1977 (3) ALR 29, relied upon by the Stamp Authorities is not attracted. The Stamp Authorities had erred in imposition of deficit stamp duty and penalty by applying Article 35(b) of the Stamp Act.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, placing reliance upon the judgment of Full Bench in Gajey Pal Singh (supra) has submitted that the controversy raised in the present writ petition falls within the four corners of the said pronouncement. The decision of the Stamp Authorities, therefore, cannot be said to be erred.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, before adverting to the facts of the instant case, it would be relevant to refer to the relevant provisions of the Stamp Act and the ratio of the Full Bench in Gajey Pal Singh (supra).

8. Article 35 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable in the State of U.P., {by U.P. Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1962} is reproduced as under :

“35. Lease, including an under-lease or sub-lease and any agreement to let or sublet—
(a) where by sub-lease the rent is fixed and no premium is paid or delivered-
(i) Where lease purports to be for a term not exceeding one year; under sub-lease.	The stamp duty as a Bond (No. 15) for the whole amount payable or de-liverable
(ii) Where the lease purports to be for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding five years:	The stamp duty as a conveyance (No. 23) for a consideration equal to the amount or value