With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

1. Issue which arises for consideration is whether the Authority viz. Collector of Stamp and the appellate authority viz. Board of Revenue are justified in holding that the General Power of Attorney executed by respondents No.3 and 4 in favour of petitioner in respect of land bearing Khasra No.63/5/1/3, 63/5/2, 63/5/1/1, 63/5/1/2, 63/4/1 comprising 1.98 acres and Khasra No.66/1/3 comprising 0.12 acre, aggregating 2.10 acres, situated at Village Chuna Bhatti, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal, contains element of transfer attracting stamp duty applicable to conveyance.

2. The General Power of Attorney in question which was executed and registered on 15.3.2002 besides being irrevocable (Clause 16 stipulates that “this Power of Attorney shall be irrevocable and we shall not revoke it in any manner whatsoever and if we do any act contrary to this power of attorney the same shall be null and void and ineffective against us”), also contained Clause 8, which is in the following terms :

“8. To enter into agreement of sale/booking of the portions of the share of M/s. D.K. Constructions in terms of agreement of the said project and/or shops/offices to be constructed with prospective purchasers and to receive the sale consideration in part or in full in his name and to execute and sign on its behalf the necessary agreement of sale and the conveyance deed in favour of the purchaser subject to the provisions of M.P. Prakoshtha Swamitva Adhiniyam, 1976 and to present the same for registration propose in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bhopal and to admit and acknowledge the execution of the same and receipt of sale consideration as having been received by the firm, D.K. Construction.”

3. Being trite it is that it is the contents/recitals and not the form of an instrument which is relevant to attract the stamp duty {Please see : Omprakash v. Laxminarayan [(2014)1 SCC 618]}, wherein it is held that “if in a document certain recitals are made then the Court would decide the admissibility of the document on the strength of such recitals and not otherwise”), the Collector of Stamp in purported exercise of the power under Article 48-B of the Stamp Act, 1899, initiated an action for imposition of duty in consonance with Article 48(f-1) of Schedule 1-A and passed the following order:-

^^esjs }kjk lacaf/kr eq[R;kjukek ns[kk x;kA bl nLrkost ds i`"B 2 dh dafMdk 8 esa ;g fy[kk gS fd eq[R;kjxzghrk lacaf/kr laifÙk ds foØ; /kujkf'k dks Lo;a ds uke ij ys ldsxkA varj.k foys[k fu"ikfnr dj ldsxkA blh nLrkost ds i`"B Øekad 3 dh dafMdk 16 esa ;g eq[R;kjukek vfujLr.kh; gksxk] vafdr gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa u dsoy ;g izfrQy dh ,ot esa fy[kk x;k gS] cfYd fcØh ds vfujLr.kh; vf/kdkj fn, tkus ls ;g vuqlwph 1¼d½ ds vuqPNsn 48 ¼p&1½ ds varxZr laifÙk ds cktkj ewY; ij varj.ki= dh Hkkafr LVkafir gksuk pkfg, FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl ij xzke pwuk HkV~Vh ds dqy 1-87 ,dM+ Hkwfe ds ewY; ds cjkcj ewY; ij lk<+s lkRk izfr'kr dh nj ls LVkai 'kqYd ns; gksxkA xkbM ykbu o"kZ 2001&02 ds vuqlkj Hkwfe dh dher 73]86]500 #i;s ij 5]53]987 #i;s LVkai 'kqYd esa ls iwoZ iznRr 100 #i;s LVkai 'kqYd de dj 'ks"k 5]53]887 #i;s ¼ik¡p yk[k frjsiu gtkj vkB lkS lrklh ek=½ LVkai 'kqYd ns; gksxkA vukosnd lalwfpr gks rFkk vkns'k dh izfr vkosnd mi&iathd dks Hksth tk,A jkf'k tek u fd, tkus ij 30 fnu ckn cdk;k olwyh dk ekeyk ntZ gksA^^

4. Petitioner challenged the order before the Board of Revenue, which affirmed the order passed by Collector of Stamp, by its order dated 28.4.2010 which is being challenged vide this petition.

5. It is contended that the Revenue Authority i.e. Collector of Stamp did not afford an opportunity of hearing. The contentions are belied from the findings in paragraph 7.1 of the Board of Revenue that:

^^dyDVj vkQ LVkai dh vkns'k if=dkvksa ls Li"V gS fd dyDVj vkQ LVkai }kjk 30-4-2005 dks izdj.k vf/kfu;e dh /