Substitution of a lessee’s name post-death does not attract additional stamp duty if it does not establish a new lease.

10 This is what the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition held.
1. By this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner / State has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 29.09.2002 (Annexure P / 1) passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision Case No.R.N.05 / S.A. / B - 103/11/09, whereby the Board of Revenue has reversed the order dated 3.3.2009 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Durg in Revenue Case No. 48 / B - 103/2008-09.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, order dated 3.3.2009 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Durg and other documents filed on behalf of the petitioner / State.
3. Originally the land was lease out to Santosh Khaitan. After death of Santosh Khaitan his son Jitendra Khaitan has filed application for amendment of his name in aforesaid lease. By order dated 3.3.2009 the Collector of Stamps, Durg arrived at a finding that this would be new lease deed, therefore, stamp of Rs.73,106/- and penalty of Rs.100/- would be necessary. Aforesaid order has been reversed by the Board of Revenue on the ground that there is no change in the name of lessee.
4. After death of Santosh Khaitan his son Jitendra Khaitan was at liberty to apply for fresh lease deed or for change of his name on the basis of succession along with other LRs of Santosh Khaitan, but instead of applying for amendment in revenue record or record of right Jitendra Khaitan has filed application for amendment of the documents, which is not permissible under the law.
5. By passing order dated 3.3.2009, the Collector of Stamps, Durg has not committed any illegality, but while reversing the order dated 3.3.2009 passed by the Collector of Stamps, the Board of Revenue has committed illegality.
6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 29.9.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby quashed. No order asto costs."

11 Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge (writ Court) dismiss the writ petition filed by the State and in turn uphold the order of the Board of Revenue impugned in the writ petition.

12 In our considered opinion, on the undisputed facts emerging from the record, it was not a case of creation of fresh lease in favour of appellant which could attract any additional stamp duty as was being demanded by the Collector of Stamps by invoking the provisions of the Stamp Act. Indeed, it was a simple case of correction of name by deleting the name of original lessee (Santosh Khaitan) who expired during currency of lease and in his place substituting the name of his son - appellant herein who had succeeded to the estate of his father by devolution under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act . The lease in question on its execution had created interest in favour of original lessee during its subsistence period in relation to the land and being in the nature of estate and capable of being devolved on his heirs as per provisions of the Hindu Succession Act , the same was devolved on the appellant as Class I heir by operation of law. The appellant had thus every right to ask the State and all its authorities to correct the record of the department including the lease in question by deleting name of the deceased and substituting his name. Since appellant was one of the legal representative of deceased as his son, and no other person (legal representatives) had come forward for substitution of their names, the name of the appellant had to be substituted in place of his deceased father as lessee in the record relating to the land including in the lease deed in question.

13 In our considered opinion and that apart, it was not disputed that firstly the original lease had not come to an end i.e. it was for the period of 30 years and this leased period had not expired on the date of d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document