A deed transferring only interest in compensation does not constitute a conveyance of immovable property under the Indian Stamp Act, thus the authority exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a notice.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vedant Agarwal, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the notice issued by the Collector/Collector Stamp, Agra under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 taking recourse to the provisions contained under Section 47A(2) of the said Act acting upon a reference made to him by Sub-Registrar, Agra dated 01.05.2019.

3. It is contended that the deed of transfer of interest of compensation has been taken to be a deed of conveyance as to immovable property and interest therein within the meaning of Entry 23 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act to find the petitioner prima facie guilty evading requisite stamp duty.

4. Sri Vedant Agarwal has placed before the Court the relevant provisions as contained under Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act, 1899 which defines "conveyance" and submits that the legislature has intended the word and expression "transferred" to be a factor falling within the definition of conveyance and, therefore, he submits that since the deed in question was only a transfer of interest, therefore, it would not have fallen within the definition of conveyance.

5. In support of his submission, Mr. Agarwal has taken the Court to the deed itself executed on 07.02.2018 by the original tenure holders that very much records that after taking possession as a result of compulsory acquisition of the land, tenure holders have received their part of compensation under the award but being not satisfied they have raised reference which is pending consideration before the concerned Court/Tribunal and since it would have taken time to get it adjudicated, it was thought appropriate to transfer 35% of the enhanced compensation, if awarded by the reference court.

6. Mr. Agarwal submits that this clearly establishes that there has been no transfer of immovable property, nor could have been possibly because the possession of the land had already been taken by the Collector invoking his power vide Section 6 of the Erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1898 and thus, the State became the owner of the land.

7. In support of the above legal submission, learned Advocate has cited before the Court the judgment in the case of Vikas Jain v. State of UP & ors being Writ-C No.12543 of 2022 and connected matters decided on 05.08.2024 in which a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court interpreting the similar deed of transfer has relied upon Full Bench judgment in the matter of CCRA v. M/s Anti Biotic Project Virbhadra Rishikesh [1979 AIR (All.) 355] in which the instrument of conveyance has been held to be necessarily entailing with it effective transfer of the immovable property. His Lordship has referred to another Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Prem Singh v. State of UP & ors [2013 (119) RD 557] that had relied upon Full Bench judgement in M/s Anti Biotic's case (supra). He has also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Jethmull Bhojraj v. State of Bihar & ors [1972 (1) SCC 714].

8. Meeting the submissions advanced by Mr. Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel has only relied upon what has been pleaded in paragraphs 5 & 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents in which vide paragraph 5 it has been pleaded that assignment deed is to be treated as a conveyance deed as rights and interest in the property were conveyed and further allegations have been leveled against the petitioner that he has not stated as to the true nature of the property regarding chargeability of the stamp duty as provided under Section 27 read with provisions of Entry 23 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. It is further pleaded in paragraph 11 that there has been no transfer of land between the co-sharers so as to attract the provisions as contained under Section 55 of the First Schedule. It is also stat