- (1.) Shorn of all technicalities and unnecessary facts on the submission made on behalf of the parties, the only question which requires to be dealt with in this writ petition is whether the instrument dated 7.9.1999 (Annexure-3 to the petition) is chargeable to stamp duty as a conveyance under Article 23 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act') or as a transfer of lease by way of assignment under Article 63 of Schedule 1-B of the Act. The orders impugned in this writ petition are the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) dated 27.9.1999 in Stamp Case No. 151 of 1999-2000 and the revisional order thereto dated 23.2.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue/Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad.
(2.) The petitioners on the above instrument on the sale consideration of Rs. 71 lacks mentioned therein have paid stamp duty of Rs. 10,30,570/- in accordance with Article 63 of Schedule 1-B of the Act but the authorities by the impugned orders have treated the instrument to be a conveyance and have demanded stamp duty on it on the market value under Article 23 of Schedule 1-B of the Act.
(3.) Sri K.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri N.B. Nigam and Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners had argued that the property was on perpetual lease and the lease hold rights alone have been transferred and this is implicit from the plain reading of the instrument and therefore the authorities are not justified in treating it a deed of conveyance under Section 2(10) of the Act.;