The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting the real intention of the parties in a document and considering the surrounding circumstances to determine the nature of the transaction.

ORDER

The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of connected W.P. No. 6495/2012 (Subhash Matani vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P. No. 6490/2012 (Prabhu Das Matani vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P. No. 6494/2012 (Rajendra Kumar Matani vs. State of M.P. and others) since a common question is involved in all these petitions.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 31-1-2008 passed by the Collector of Stamp, Jabalpur (Annexure P-5) which has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior vide its order dated 31-1-2012 (Annexure P-6).

3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition lie in narrow compass. Suffice it to say that Jabalpur Development Authority-respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the JDA") has executed a compromise deed with respondent No. 3 Hari Mohan Das Tondon and one Akhil Mishra (not arrayed as party) in respect of land Khasra No. 181/9 admeasuring 0.639 Hectare, Settlement No. 660, Patwari Halka No. 25/31 situated at Moza Marhotal, Tehsil and District Jabalpur. The said compromise deed dated 1-10-2007 (Annexure P-1) is a tripartite deed and it was agreed between the parties that the JDA will acquire the aforesaid land of which the third respondent is owner and in lieu of compensation of the aforesaid land the JDA shall execute lease of developed plots equal to 20% of the total area to the owner of the land i.e. the third respondent. Thereafter the third respondent filed an application before the JDA for transfer of lease of developed plot No. 283 admeasuring 3240 square feet received from the said authority as compensation against the acquisition of the land under Scheme No. 14 of the JDA. Eventually, the JDA executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner in respect to developed plot No. 283 area 3240 square feet on 6-10-2007 (Annexure P-2).

4. Further the case of the petitioner is that the JDA vide its letter dated 19-11-2007 (Annexure P-3) admitted the factum of execution of the lease of the developed plots in favour of the petitioner which has been made against the compensation of the land acquired by the JDA. Thereafter, on 16-10-2007 the petitioner submitted a lease agreement dated 6-10-2007 for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur. But, instead of registering the document of lease deed the Sub-Registrar vide its letter No. 306 dated 2-11-2007 referred the matter under section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short "the Stamp Act") along with its report to the Collector of Stamp who registered the case and sent the notice to the parties including the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply dated 5-1-2008 (Annexure P-4). The Collector, Stamp vide its order dated 31-1-2008 (Annexure P-5) imposed stamp duty Rs. 93,964/- on market value of Rs. 9,03,500/- and in addition, further directed to pay five times penalty on annual rent (Bhu-Bhatak) of Rs. 1,944/- which comes to Rs. 94,781/- and out of which the stamp duty worth Rs. 1,000/- has been paid at the time when the document was submitted for its registration. Hence, a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 93,781/- and in addition, penalty of Rs. 1,000/- total Rs. 94,781/- has been directed to be paid and deposited within 30 days of the order in the Treasury failing which the said amount shall be recovered as land revenue as per the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. An appeal which was filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue has also been dismissed on 31-1-2012 (Annexure P-6). Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.

5. The contention of Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector of Stamp as well as the learned Board of Revenue have misinterpreted Articles 33 and 57 Schedule 1A of the Stamp Act (M.P. Amendment). Because, both the authorities ought to have appreciated that absolute right of ownership was not transferred but the land in que