Allowed

Arjun Lal Paliwal v. Dig Registration and Colle., Bhilwara Andanr

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2018CW/2580/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order imposing stamp duty on a lease deed. Relying on a prior precedent, the court held that a lease term exceeding 20 years without absolute certainty of renewal does not attract conveyance duty. The impugned order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.06.2008 passed by the DIG, Registration and Collector (Stamps), Circle Bhilwara is quashed and set aside.

Arjun Lal Paliwal Vs Dig Registration and Colle… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 2580/2009

Arjun Lal Paliwal

----Petitioner

Versus

Dig Registration And Colle., Bhilwara Andanr

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yuvraj Singh

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶10

Order

¶11

06/10/2018

¶12

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this court for assailing the order dated 20.06.2008 (Annex.6) passed by the DIG, Registration and Collector (Stamps), Circle Bhilwara, whereby while answering a reference made to him, the authority considered the automatic renewal condition in the lease deed executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 for a period of 19 years and 11 months as bringing the lease deed in question within the purview of a conveyance and directed charging of stamp duty and penalty thereupon to the tune of Rs.6,20,000/-.

¶13

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement with the proposition that the controversy involved in the case at hand stands squarely covered by the judgment dated 23.09.2016 passed by this court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri

¶14

[CW-2580/2009]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

Sunder Lal & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8734/2008) ,

¶17

wherein it was held as below :-

¶18

“9. It is true that as per Article 33 (a)(iii) of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998, the stamp duty on the lease deed executed for a term exceeding 20 years, the stamp duty is payable on the market value of the property, treating the instrument of the lease deed as conveyance. But then for levying the stamp duty treating the lease to be a conveyance, from perusal of the lease deed, it must clearly appear that it is executed for a term in excess of 20 years. In the instant case, a bare look at the lease deed makes it abundantly clear that it was intended for the term 19 years and 11 months only. Of course, there is a condition incorporated for automatic renewal of lease after expiry of term of 19 years and 11 months, but at the same time, either of the parties is given liberty to give a three months' previous notice to the other party expressing its intention not to further renew the lease. Thus obviously, the renewal of lease after expiry of the term is at the will of the parties to the lease deed. That apart, it is specifically mentioned in the lease deed that on expiry of period of 19 years and 11 months, a fresh lease deed would be executed between the parties. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Collector (Stamp) had apparently erred in presuming the term of the lease as 39 years and 10 months by giving extended meaning to the clause 3(b) of the lease deed and ignoring the specific condition incorporated therein giving liberty to the parties to the lease to express their intention not to renew the lease after expiration of the term of the lease by giving a three months' previous notice to other party.”

¶19

In view of the fact that for an identical renewal clause

¶20

in the document, this court has categorically ruled that the same

¶21

[CW-2580/2009]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

would not bring the document within the purview of a conveyance. Manifestly, the impugned order too cannot be sustained. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 20.06.2008 (Annex.6) passed by the DIG, Registration and Collector (Stamps), Circle Bhilwara is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶24

No order as to costs.

¶25

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶26

Pramod/18

Arjun Lal Paliwal v. Dig Registration and Colle., Bhilwara Andanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Lal Paliwal v. Dig Registration and Colle., Bhilwara Andanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Vs State Excise and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Sidana Vs State Excise and Ors.

Sabir Mohammed Vs State and Ors.

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Roop Giri

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Laxmi Beniwal

Banwari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.