JASWANT SINGH - (1.) THIS bunch of Civil Appeals Nos. 67-122 and 238 of 1969 by certificate granted under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by its order dated 28/06/1968 against its common judgement and order dated 21/08/1967, passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 489, 491, 537 to 541, 635, 684, 685, 687, 688, 830 to 832, 561, 1219, 715 to 719, 812, 813, 1216, 677, 638, 639, 695, 853 to 856, 636,867, 870, 1146, 1285, 1260, 1261, 1284, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1309, 1310, 1340, 1447, 1697 and 1265 of 1967 which raise interesting questions of law relating to the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 shall be disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) THE facts giving raise to these appeals are: THE Forest Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh after giving a sale notice held, in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof, an auction in 1967 in respect of various items of forest produce viz. timber, fuel, bamboos, minor forest produce, beedi leaves, tanning barks, mohwa etc. clause 23 of the notice inter alia required the contractors to pay within 10 days of the receipt of the confirmation orders of the competent authority: (a) the balance of the 1st installment amount, as might be fixed by the Divisional Forest Officer; (b) 61/4 Per Cent of the bid amount as security deposit; (c) sales tax on the bid amount at the rates current at the time of the sale. Clause 60 of the notice provided that the contractors would at all times comply with the provisions of the Indian Stamp (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment) Act XIX of 1959, and the Andhra Pradesh Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, and all the rules that might, from time to time, be in force thereunder. The respondents herein being the highest bidders in respect of some items of the forest produce were called upon to pay in terms of the above noted conditions the stamp duty on the agreements to be executed by them as if they were leases of immovable property falling under Article 31 (c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. They were also called upon to pay sales tax on the bid amount in terms of clause (23) of the sale notice. They were further called upon to pay stamp duty on the deposits made by them by way of security as mortgages, falling within Article 35 (c) of the Stamp Act. Aggrieved by the said notices, the respondents filed the aforesaid petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of appropriate writs etc, declaring the aforesaid demand notices as illegal and void and retraining the appellants from enforcing or taking any proceeding for the levy and recovery of the amounts mentioned therein. The respondents contended before the High Court that as the right to pluck collect and take away beedi leaves and to cut and carry away bamboos, standing timber etc, was not a right or interest in immovable property so as to attract Article 31 (c) of the Stamp Act, there could be no question of payment by them of the stamp duty. The respondents also challenged the demand made from them for payment of sales tax on the bid amount on the ground that as the Government did not carry on any business of sale, the demand was illegal. They further challenged the demand of tamp duty under Article 35 (c) of the Stamp Act pleading that the security deposits were not mortgages so as to attract the provisions of the said Article of the Stamp Act. The petitions were contested by the appellants herein who contended inter alia that pursuant to clause (6) of the terms and conditions of the sale notice, the respondents were bound to pay the stamp duties that were chargeable in view of the extension of the Indian Stamp Act to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Indian Stamp (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment) Act XIX of 1959 with effect from 1/04/1959. and repeal of the Hyderabad Stamp Act, and the rules, notifications, instructions etc. made or issued thereunder; that the right acquired by the respondents was not merely a right to collect, appropriate and sell beedi leaves that had already grown but also the right to collect, use and sell beedi leaves that would subsequently grow on the standing trees and their branches taking nourishment from the land during the period of lease which showed that the respondents obtained under the agreements an interest in immovable property. The appellants further contended that the respondents were, according to the sale notice, liable to pay sales tax on the bid amount as also the stamp duty on security deposits which fell within the definition of mortgages as contemplated by the Stamp Act.
(3.) ON a careful consideration of the respective stands of the parties, the High Court negatived the contentions of the appellants and allowed the petitions. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, the appellants applied for certificate under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution which, as already stated was granted to them. This is how the appeals are before us. Three questions fall for consideration in these appeals. The first question that we are called upon to determine is whether the agreements which the respondents were called upon to execute in respect of the aforesaid rights relating to forest produce were in the nature of lease or licences.;