Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THE Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U. P. i.e. the Board of Revenue, has made the refer ence under Section 57 of the Stamp Act for our opinion on the following questions: (i) Whether the document under re ference is a lease or an agreement to let immovable property and duty is payable on it under Art. 35, Schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act, as amended in its application to U. P. vide U. P. Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1962? (ii) If the answer to the above ques tion is in Ihe affirmative, then whether the document would fall under clause (c) of the aforesaid Art. 35 and the total amount of Rs. 3,78,095.73 (representing Rupees 69,591.21 already paid on account of a premium, Rs. 49,136.10 already paid as development charge and Rs. 1,59,368.42 promised to be paid as development charges) would be treated as premium and Rs. 732.50 as annual rent for calculating the proper stamp duty due thereon and whether additional stamp duty @ Rs. 2 as imposed by S. 67-H of the U. P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 (U. P. Act VIII of 1919) as amended by Section 5 (1) of the U. P. Local Self-Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1966 (U. P. Act XXIX of 1966), on deeds of transfer of immov able property situated within the limits of Ghaziabad Regulated Area vide U. P. Government Notification No. 1102 H/ XXXII-50 (24) H/59 dated July 20, 1960, (published in U. P. Gazette Part I page 1107 dated 23-7-1960) will also be pay able on the document on the total amount on which stamp duty is payable? (iii) If the document under reference is held to be chargeable with duty under Art. 35 (c) of Schedule 1-B, then whe ther the subsequent lease deeds, giving possession in respect of portion of land detailed in Schedule B to the document, to be executed by the Improvement Trust in favour of the nominee of party No. II will be chargeable with duty under Arti cle 25 (c) Schedule I-B on the amount of premium stated tTierein and rent reserved thereunder and whether additional duty @ Rs. 2 as imposed by Section 67-H of the U. P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 (U. P. Act VIII of 1919) as amended by Section 5 (i) of the U. P. Local Self-Gov ernment Laws (Amendment) Act, 1966 (U. P. Act XXIX of 1966) on deeds of trans fer of immovable property situated within the limits of Ghaziabad vide U. P. Gov ernment Notification No. 1102 H/XXXVII-50 (24) H/50 dated July 20, 1960 will also be payable thereon or whether such docu ments will be chargeable with duty of Rs. 2.25 only under proviso to Art. 35 of Schedule I-B? (iv) Whether the Inspector of Stamps and Registration, Meerut acting as Collec tor under Section 40 of the Stamp Act or the Board of Revenue, as the Chief Con trolling Revenue Authority, acting under Section 56 (i) thereof, are barred on the principle of res judicata and stare decicis from examining the question of proper stamp duty payable on the document for the reason that the Collector, Meerut, had acting under Ss. 31/32 of the Act, en dorsed certain other documents on which a duty of Rs. 2.25 had been paid as pro perly stamped? (v) If the answer to question No. (i) is in the negative then whether the obliga tion to pay a sum of Rs. 1,59,368.42 con tained in clause (3) of the document, hav ing been attested is a bond under S. 2 (5) (b) of the Stamp Act and is chargeable with duty under Art. 15, Schedule I-B of the Act? (vi) Whether the document is a simple agreement covered by Art. 5 (c) of Sche dule I-B of the Stamp Act and is, as such, properly stamped?
(2.) CERTAIN lands described in Schedule A of the document in dispute were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for purposes of the Improvement Trust of Ghaziabad from Darbari Singh Saini, applicant, and certain other persons. The Improvement Trust I entered into an agreement with the appli-jcant and other owners separately in res pect of the lands acquired and the agree ment with applicant is the subject-matter of the reference. The document was des cribed as an agreement and was stamped with Rs. 2.25 P. By this agreement the Improvement Trust agreed to execute in favour of the applicant or his nominees ideeds of lease in respect of the land des-jcribed in Schedule B of the document in consideration of certain payments of pre mium, development cost and money equi valent to lease rent by the applicant or his nominees. The applicant paid to the Im provement Trust a sum of Rs. 69,591.21 which was described as premium and also a sum of Rs. 49,156.10 which was described as initial deposit being 20 per cent of the development charges and promised to pay further a sum of Rs. 159,362.42 in eight half-yearly instalments representing ten per cent of the development charges and also promised to pay a further sum of Rs. 732.05 per annum which was des cribed as equivalent of lease land. All these amounts were paid or were payable to the Improvement Trust. In considera tion of these payments the Improvement Trust undertook to execute a deeu or deeds of lease in respect of one or more of the plots in Schedule B for a period of ninety years, in favour of the applicant or his nominees. Quite a number of similar agreements were executed between differ ent parties. The Improvement Trust on 29-8-70 sent a pro forma of the draft agree ment similar to the one under reference to the Collector Meerut with the request that proper stamp duty thereon be assessed. The A.D.M. (E) Meerut gave the opinion that the agreement was chargeable with stamp duty under Art. 5 (c) of the Stamp Act and also as an agreement to lease with the stamp duty under Art. 35 of Schedule I-B of the Act. He requested the Im provement Trust to supply the particulars for the opinion about the quantum of duty payable. The Improvement Trust then ob tained the opinion of its counsel and for warded it to the Collector. After consider ing the opinion, the Improvement Trust was informed that the documents may be treated as a pure agreement and the stamp duly chargeable thereon was only Rs. 2.25. Similar documents are said to have been executed after this opinion, on stamp of Rs. 2.25. The document under reference is similar in nature to the document the draft of which was sent to the Collector, but when the document was presented be fore the Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad, for re gistration, the Inspector of Stamps and Registration happened to examine it and he being of opinion that the document constituted a lease held it to be liable to be stamped under Art. 35 (c) of Schedule I-B of the U. P. Stamp Amendment Act, 1962 with stamp duty of Rs. 18,288.75. Accordingly the document was impounded and action was taken under S. 40 of the Stamp Act by the Inspector who is also the Collector under the Stamp Act. Be sides requiring the deficiency in duty to be paid he also imposed a penalty of Rs. 100. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant filed a revision under S. 56 (1) of the Act to the Chief Controlling Re venue Authority (the Board of Revenue). The Board of Revenue was of opinion that the document was an agreement to lease and was liable to stamp duty under Arti cle 35 (c) of Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act. A further contention raised before the Board was to the effect that the opin ion expressed by the Collector in similar cases, to the effect that the document was a simple agreement covered by Art. 5 (c) and liable to be stamped with Rs. 2.25 only, was a decision which on the principles of res judicata and stare decisis affected the present document also and the Collec tor was bound by that decision. The Board was of opinion that this contention was not correct, but since it was of the view that important questions of interpretation of the provisions of the Stamp Act were involv ed and were of general importance, it has referred to us the aforesaid questions of law.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appli cant has contended that the decision given by the Collector under Ss. 31/32 of the Act was of binding effect and on the prin ciples of res judicata and stare decisis the Collector could not now demand higher stamp duty on the document in question. We see no force in this contention. The certificate issued under Section 32 when an instrument is brought to the Collector under Section 31 is in respect of that parti cular document only and cannot operate on any other document. Section 31 (1) of the Act states: "When any instrument, whether exe cuted or not and whether previously stamp ed or not, is brought to the Collector, and the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of that officer as to the duty (if any) with which it is chargeable, and pays a fee of such amount (not exceeding five rupees and not less than fifty paise) as the Collector may in each case direct, the Collector shall determine the duty (if any) with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable." Under S. 32 (1) of the Act the Collec tor has to certify by endorsement on that very instrument. Sub- section (3) of Sec tion 32 of the Act says: "Any instrument upon which an en dorsement has been made under this sec tion, shall be deemed to be duly stamped or not chargeable with duty, as the case may be; and, if chargeable with duty, shall be receivable in evidence or otherwise, and may be acted upon and registered as if it had been originally duly stamped......" It is thus apparent that a certificate issued by the Collector in each case is in respect only of the particular instru ment certified and is not meant to be ope rative in respect of instruments of a simi lar nature not brought before him for certi fication. The opinion of the Collector in an earlier case thus cannot debar him from giving a different opinion subsequent ly on the principle of stare decisis. It can also iot debar him from arriving at a dif ferent conclusion to which he has arrived in the present case on the principle of res judicata as there was neither a judicial determination of the matter by the Collec tor nor the present applicant was a party to the earlier instrument. We accordingly answer question No. 4 referred to us in the1 negative.;