ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed assailing the notice issued by respondent No. 2 requiring the petitioner to pay their Stamp duty chargeable in respect of the Agreements of Sale, dated 24.04.2011 in notice No. Imp/2406/2022, dated 01.11.2022, wherein the petitioner was required to pay Stamp duty under Article 6B of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Agreements of Sale with possession, dated 24.04.2011, forwarded to respondent No. 2 for the purpose of impounding by collecting deficit Stamp duty in respect of the open lands admeasuring various extents and respondent No. 2, having considered the said documents, issued the impugned notice requiring the petitioner to pay deficit Stamp duty under Article 6(B) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the agreements of sale in question are covering only open lands and as such the petitioner is liable to pay Stamp duty only under Article 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, but not under Article 6(B) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as demanded by respondent No. 2.

4. This matter was adjourned from time to time to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration to get instructions and today learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration placed before this Court the written instructions, which are in tune with the contents of the demand made in the impugned notices.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that this Court, on an earlier occasion, considered the similar aspect in respect of the property, which is open land and this Court held that in respect of open lands, it is only under Article 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, applies but not Article 6(B) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

6. In the case of Saranam Peda Appaiah vs. S. Narasimha Reddy, 2004 (6) ALT 23 (D.B.) a division Bench of this Court has considered the similar issue and held as under:

“Article 6(B) is very clear in its expression that in case of any transactions relating to construction of a house etc. as mentioned in descriptive column of the instrument, the stamp duty required is Rs. 5/- for every hundred or part thereof, of the market value or the estimated cost of proposed construction or development of such property as the case may be. Therefore, the question that calls for consideration is whether the said Article covers the agricultural land also. It is a cardinal principle of the interpretation that the provision interpreted with reference to the words contained in the provisions and by interpretative process, it is neither to be expanded nor constricted. When the Legislature has specifically referred to the document relating to construction of house, apartment, flat, portion of multi-storied building etc and the stamp duty is payable on the market value or the estimated cost of the said property, it has to be confined only to houses, multi unit houses or apartment etc. Even the valuation was sought to be arrived at on the basis of the rates prescribed by the Public Works Department authorities. Further it is noticed that the transactions left over by Article 6(B) are covered by Article 6(C). Therefore, it cannot also be said that there was vacuum in the Article. In the instant case, the agreement is after 1-4-1995, but it relates to the agricultural land. Taking the clue from the last expression in the document namely “sale of any other immovable property” it was contended that it would embrace in its fold other immovable property including the agricultural property and therefore, the stamp duty has to be paid on that basis. But, that contention cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the expression the sale of any other immovable property has to be interpreted keeping in view the principles of ejusdem generis namely where gene