JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.

2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 27.12.2006, 29.9.2007 passed by Respondent no.3/ Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur and order dated 4.9.2009 passed by Respondent no.2/ Deputy Commissioner (Stamps), Varanasi Division, Varanasi.

3. By the impugned order dated 27.12.2006 passed by Respondent no.3/ Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur, treating the lease deed to be in perpetuity in proceedings initiated under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, deficiency of stamp duty was found in the light of Schedule 1-B Article 35(a)(vi) of the Indian Stamps Act. The revision filed against the same was also dismissed.

4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially order dated 27.12.2006 was passed by Respondent no.3 against the petitioner without granting proper opportunity of hearing to him and without following proper procedure of law. It was further pointed out that in fact, lease deed was surrendered on 2.6.2006.

5. The restoration application filed against the same was rejected. Therefore, two revisions filed by the petitioner before the Revisional Authorities and both were dismissed by Respondent no.2 / Deputy Commissioner (Stamps), Varanasi Division, Varanasi.

6. Several arguments have been raised to contend that the facts as well as law on the issue involved have not been appreciated by the authorities concerned. By drawing attention to the various clauses of the lease deed dated 20.4.2005, it was submitted that a lease deed was executed for a period of 30 years only with a clause of renewal of the same, hence, the stamp duty could have been levied under Schedule 1-B Article 35(a)(v) of the Indian Stamp Act and not under Sub-Clause (vi) and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. He has specifically drawn the attention to Clause (c)(iv), (v) and Clause 3(b) of the Lease Deed to contend that the lease deed was for a period of 30 years only and it was specifically clarified that at the time of such renewal, the parties shall execute fresh lease deed.

7. Submission, therefore, is that stamp duty could have been levied under Article 35 (a) (v) and not under Article 35(a)(vi) of the Schedule 1-B. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (102) RD 574 and a judgment of this Court passed in Reliance Industries Limited vs. State of U.P. & others, 2018(10) ADJ 137.

8. Per contra, Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel by drawing attention to lease deed submitted that the lease deed provided that the lessor shall not terminate the lease before the expiry of the period of 30 years. He had further submitted that the lease deed further provided that the lessor agrees that at the expiry of the said term of 30 years this lease will automatically and without any further act of the parties hereto shall stand renewed for a further similar period. Submission, therefore, is that the lease therefore is to be treated lease in perpetuity and, therefore, would be covered by Article 35 (a)(vi) of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamps Act. Submission, therefore, is that the impugned orders warrant no interference by this Court and the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. For disposing of the petition, it would be appropriate to take note of the Clause (c) and 3(b) of the Lease Deed, which are quoted hereunder :

"(c) The LESSOR has made the following representations to the LESSEE--

(i) The LESSOR has full power and absolute authority to grant this lease to the LESSEE.

(ii) The Demised Premises are free from all encumbrances and charges and the LESSOR is not holding valid and marketable tilt to th