By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the orders dated 25-3-1994 and 6-7-1998, Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No.1 and 2 respectively.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition, are that order dated 14.10.1978 was passed by District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in O.S. No. 11 of 1978, arising out of the award published and declared by the Arbitrator Sri P.H. Ramchandani dated 28.2.1978 in the matter of arbitration between Lt. Col. Maharaja Manbendra Shah and State of U.P. During the pendency of the writ petition Lt. Col. Maharaja Manbendra Shah has died and he was substituted by petitioner No. 1/1 Maharaja Manujendra Shah. After passing the award the petitioner filed an application U/S 14 read with Section 17 ofthe Arbitration Act, in the Court of District Judge Tehri for making the said award a Rule of the Court. The state of U.P. filed objections under Section 30 of the Act. The learned District Judge was pleased to dismiss the objections of the State ofU.P. in Misc. Case No. 17 of 1978 (T) with costs by order dated 14.10.1978. However the learned District Judge did not make the said award a Rule of the Court, on the subsequent objections of the State that the Award was not duly stamped and by a separate order of the same date passed in Suit No. 11 of 1978, the District was pleased to impound the same and forwarded the Award to Collector under Section 38 ofthe Indian stamp Act for determining the stamp duty and penalty on the said Award.

3. The Collector Tehri after receipt of the reference, pursuant to the direction dated 14.10.1978 proceeded under Section 40 of the Act to decide whether the stamp duty is paid in accordance with law or not.

4. Vide order dated 25.3.94 the Collector came to the conclusion that the property of Narendra Nagar Palace and land of Simlasu Estate, including the building like Seesh Mahal, Gol Kothi and orchard etc is personal property of Majaraja and the stamp duty has to be paid as per value of the property and stamp duty has to be paid as per provision of Article-12 of schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act.

5. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred revision No. 1 of 1993-94 before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, which was dismissed by the learned Commissioner vide judgment and order dated 6.7.1998.

6. Further aggrieved by the above orders passed by the learned Collector as well as learned Commissioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the judgment and orders passed by courts below holding that stamp duty is payable in the personal properties of the petitioner under Article 12 (1-B) of the Indian Stamp Act are illegal and ultravires. The conclusion of the respondents that the award is liable to be stamped according to the market value of the properties is also illegal. The award dated 28-2-1978 has been passed regarding the pre-existing rights of the petitioner on the personal properties as per the merger agreement between the petitioner and the Union of India. The award did not create new rights of the petitioner on the properties.

7. The State/respondent filed counter affidavit and denied the stand taken by the petitioner that no stamp duty is payable on the property in dispute and alleged that the award was not sufficiently stamped and hence the lower court passed the impugned order which is just, legal and valid.

8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the entire record.

9. Perusal of record shows that State of Tehri was a sovereign State before independence and on independence of the nation, the then ruler of Tehri decided to merge the state in the dominion of India and accordingly an agreement of merger was executed between the then rule of the State and the dominion of India. Under the agreement, certain properties

were declared to be the personal properties of the ruler of the Tehri State. It was furth