The central legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of lease under the Government Grants Act should be treated as an assignment of a lease and not a conveyance, and the stamp duty should be payable in accordance with Article 63 of the Indian Stamp Act.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The brief facts of the case are that, a lease deed dated 05.06.1997 was executed in favour of one Smt. Mahendra Kaur, in relation to the property, which has been described in the lease deed itself, to be governed under the provisions of the Government Grants Act. The said lease deed itself included a clause that the property thus transferred, by virtue of the lease deed, could be leased out by the lessee to the subsequent lessee, and thus, in the instant case, the present petitioner is said to have got the right of user which was claimed to be transferred in his favour, by virtue of registration of lease deed of plot no. 27, lying in the mini-industrial estate, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, upon its sanction being granted by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Haldwani (Nainital).

2. As a consequence of the said transfer of land under lease, on an annual premium of Rs. 36,704/- the stamp duty, which was payable on the transfer agreement, was determined to be made payable in accordance with Article 63 of the Indian Stamp Act.

3. The present petitioner was issued with the notice under Section 47A to be read with Section 33, resulting into registration of Stamp Case No. 52/2018 of 2006-07, State vs. Jagmohan Singh, whereby the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, on the basis of the report which was submitted by the Sub-Registrar vide its letter dated 29.09.2006, and had considered the permission, which has been granted for transfer of the land under the lease deed in favour of the present petitioner. But the only question, which was left open to be decided was in relation to the stamp duty, which was paid by the present petitioner on transfer of the lease in his favour, which would be that what stamp duty would be charged and at what rate?

4. The Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, had come to the conclusion, that on the transfer agreement by virtue of which, the land which was leased out under the Government Grant Act to the principal lessee has been transferred, the stamp duty would be payable in accordance with Article 23 of the Indian Stamp Act, whereas the case of the petitioner was that, since it was a transfer of a lease and it was not a conveyance, the stamp duty, which will be payable on the same, would be on the basis of Article 63 of the Indian Stamp Act.

5. The case in question stood decided by the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, by the judgment which was rendered on 20.05.2010, wherein it was observed that with respect to the deed which was executed by the erstwhile lessee, the stamp duty which will be payable on the same was treated to be under Article 23 by treating the same as to be a deed of conveyance, where complete rights were transferred, and the Court of Additional District Magistrate, declined to accept the argument extended by the applicant that the stamp duty, which will be payable on the same, would be in accordance with Appendix-1(Kha) and Article 63 of the Indian Stamp Act.

6. As a consequence thereto, the Court has determined, that while valuing the property as per the report as to be Rs. 34,02,000/- the stamp duty which would be payable on the same would be Rs. 3,40,200/- and as such, since the present petitioner has paid only Rs. 7,700/-. Thus, the deficiency which was assessed to be made by the Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, was Rs. 3,32,500/-. Besides that, he has also imposed payment of Rs. 2% interest per acre per month on the above deficiency of Rs. 3,32,500/- i.e. for 42 per months and had determined the interest payable upon it as to be Rs. 2,79,300/-. Consequently, the total deficiency which was directed to be made payable by the present petitioner was assessed to be Rs. 6,11,800/-.

7. The said judgment of the Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, was put to challenge by the petitioner in a revision under Section 56 of the Indian S