JUDGMENT :

JAYANT BANERJI, J.

1. Heard Sri Sukhendu Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the following prayers have been sought :

(i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.4.2014 (vide Annexure no. 1) passed by the respondent no. 2 -Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue)/Collector, Stamp, Kanpur Nagar in Suit No. 01 of 2013-14 (Smt. Vimlesh Chandel Vs. State of UP and others).

(ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to compute stamp duty on the proposed deed (Vide Annexure No. 18) transfer of entire rights by lessee Baldev Raj Verma regarding plot no. 621/12, Block No. W, Scheme II, Juhi Kalan, Kanpur, District Kanpur Nagar in favour of petitioner in pursuance of agreement for sale dated 13.11.1990 (Annexure No. 4 of the writ petition) in accordance with Article 63 of Schedule I B of Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 i.e. according to consideration for transfer and not according to market value of land as contemplated under Article 23(a) of Schedule I B of Indian STAMP ACT .

3. The facts as appearing in the writ petition are that plot no. 621/12, Block No. W, Scheme II, Juhi Kalan, Kanpur and was leased between Baldev Raj Verma by the Nagar Mahapalika (the lessor, in respect of which property, later, the Kanpur Development Authority became the lessor). The lease deed executed on 11.2.1975 for a period of 99 years was for an open plot of land over which Baldev Raj Verma was required to make constructions. By means of a registered agreement for transfer of property in question registered on 13.11.1990 Baldev Raj Verma agreed to transfer the property in favour of the petitioner for consideration. The abovenamed Baldev Raj Verma also executed a registered power of attorney in favour of Smt. Ram Kumari regarding the property in question which could also give rights to Smt. Ram Kumari to execute the sale deed in respect of the property in question. It is stated that some constructions were made by Smt. Ram Kumari and the agreement for sale and the power of attorney is still subsisting. The petitioner submitted an application dated 15.9.2011 to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), district Kanpur Nagar alongwith a proposed deed for transfer of the property in question on which an endorsement was made by the Magistrate to the Sub-Registrar to submit his report. Since the application was not being decided, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner which came to be disposed of with a direction that the matter be decided within two months. The petitioner then submitted an application under section 31 of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1988[The Act.] before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue). A report from the Sub Registrar was called for and on the report being received, the petitioner filed her objections stating that the stamp duty is required to be computed on the basis of the consideration mentioned in the deed in view of Article 63 of Schedule I-B of the Act and not on the basis of the market value. By the order dated 7.4.2014, the Additional District Magistrate held that the deed in question was a sale deed as the words 'sale deed' and 'sale' had been used in the deed in some places, and, it was further held that the instrument would be chargeable under Article 35(a)(vi) of Schedule I-B of the Act that pertains to a lease deed for period exceeding 30 years.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the lease deed was duly executed in favour of the lessee, Baldev Raj