Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ for setting aside the order dated 14.9.2001 passed by the Collector Almora in Stamp Case No. 36/1999-2000 and also the orders dated 12.12.2001 and 29.4.2002 passed by Commissioner Kumaun Division and Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner Nainital in Stamp revision No. 2/2001-2002 and Revision No. 22 of 2002-2003 respectively.

3. Processing in Stamp Case No. 36/99-2000, Sub Registrar Almora Vs. Sri Suresh Tulsidas Kilachand under the Stamps Act was registered in the Court of District Magistrate/Collector Almora. It appears that the instrument of lease deed for a period of thirty years was executed on 19.1.1996 in respect of 21 Nali, 10 Muthi land and building existing in Khatauni Khata No. 1 of Patti Khas Parja, Almora. The petitioner had paid Stamp duty of Rs. 1,56,745/- on the said instrument. It appears that the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were applicable to the land in question.

4. Notices were issued to the petitioner and the valuation of the land and building in question was got done by Tehsildar Almora. The petitioner submitted his reply that the land was given on lease for a period of thirty years on which the stamp duty was paid at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per Nali amounting to Rs. 1,56,745/-. The petitioner also alleged that surplus stamp duty had been paid on the instrument.

5. The learned Collector after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record has held that there is deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 1,25,425/-, therefore, the impugned order dated 14.9.2001 has been passed for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner within a period of one month.

6. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Stamp Revision No. 2/2001-2002 before the Commissioner, Kumaun Division Nainital. The learned revisional court did not find favour with the revisionist-petitioner and dismissed the revision by order dated 12.12.2001 on the ground that the transferable rights have been given to the lease holder, therefore, the instrument has to be treated as sale deed.

7. Further aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2001 revision was preferred before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner (Circuit Court) Uttaranchal, Nainital. The second revisional court too did not find favour with the petitioner and dismissed the revision by his order dated 29.4.2002, which gave rise to the present writ petition.

8. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has paid the stamp duty on the property in question valuing the same on the basis of the lease consideration @ Rs. 8000/- per month whereas the stamp duty should have been valued on the market value of the land and rent of the building.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the stamp duty has been paid by the petitioner, which is payable on conveyance No. 23 as provided under the Indian Stamps Act. On the other hand, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that because the property in question has been shown to transfer all the rights of enjoyment for a term of 90 years, therefore, the stamp duty is payable as on sale deed. The contention of the learned Brief Holder for the State is that the order passed by the Collector is legal and the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Collector has been rightly dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 12.12.2001 and the learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner too has rightly dismissed the revision by his order 29.4.2002.

10. For a just decision of the case, a reference to the provisions of Section 156 and 165 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is necessary. Section 156 reads as under :-

“156. Letting of land.- (1) No bhumidhar or asami shall let for any period whatsoever any land comprised in his hold