- (1.) A Nazul plot No. 10, Block 15, Civil Lines, Kanpur measuring 6910 Sq. meters had been put to auction by the Kanpur Development Authority on 28-4-1987. The bid of the petitioner for Rs. 6.10 crores was highest and had been accepted. Thereafter an agreement was executed between the petitioner and Kanpur Development Authority on 11-6-1987. The said document was executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 7/- only. After seven years, in October, 1994 Kanpur Development Authority sent a complaint to Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Kanpur Nagar (A. D. M. (F. and R.)) Respondent No. 3, along with a photo copy of the agreement dated 11-6-1987 stating that the said document had been under-stamped and proceedings may be initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Indian Stamps Act for not paying appropriate stamp duty. In response, on 31-10-1994 the Respondent No. 3 A. D. M. (F. and R.) wrote to the Kanpur Development Authority and summoned the original agreement dated 11-6-1987. On 1-11-1994 the Vice-Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority supplied the agreement to the Respondent No. 3, which, the petitioner contends, was not the original but merely a photocopy of the original. A show cause notice dated 14-11-1994 was thereafter issued to the petitioner by the Respondent No. 3, to which a reply was filed by the petitioner on 29-11-1994. In its reply, the petitioner raised three objections, namely, that the document did not attract any stamp duty; that the proceedings could not be initiated against the petitioner as the same were barred by limitation; and that the A. D. M. (F. and R.) had no authority or power to summon the document to initiate the proceedings. After filing of the reply, the petitioner on 28-12-1994 deposited a sum of Rs. 60 lacs towards the estimated stamp duty on the document and thereafter again filed detailed objections before the Respondent No. 3 on 1-2-1995. By his order dated 6-2-1995, the Respondent No. 3 determined the stamp duty payable by the petitioner to be Rs. 72,25,450/- and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,57,815/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner challenged the same by filing a revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA), Respondent No. 2, on 16-2-1995 along with an application for stay. On the same date the CCRA passed an order of status quo and fixed 6-3-1995 for filing of objections by the opposite parties and hearing. However, since despite the stay order granted by the CCRA the Respondent No. 3 was proceeding to execute the order dated 6-2-1995 by putting seals on certain rooms and halls of the petitioner's property, the petitioner filed an application on 18-2-1995 with a prayer for a direction to the Respondent No. 3 to remove the said seals on the rooms of their property. Another application was filed on 22-2-1995 with similar prayer, which was directed to be taken up on 25-2-1995. On 25-2-1995 when, according to the petitioner, only arguments were heard in respect of the applications of the petitioner, the CCRA, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, passed the order finally deciding the revision itself stating that an oral request for reviewing the order dated 16-2-1995 had been made by the Respondent-State, although in fact 6-3-1995 had been fixed for the hearing of the revision. By the said order dated 25-2-1995 the penalty was reduced to Rs. 42,45,368.75 paise since admittedly the area of the land had been found to be reduced from 6910 sq. metres to 5974 sq. meters. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 6-2-1995 passed by Respondent No. 3 and the order dated 25-2-1995 passed by Respondent No. 2, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents at length and have perused the record.
(3.) Sri V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the agreement dated 11-6-1987, no rights had been transferred in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had merely been authorized to be in possession, and mere permission had been granted to the petitioner to raise construction. Although the same had been termed 'as an 'agreement to lease', it was actually nothing but only a license and thus no stamp duty would be payable on the same. Learned counsel has further submitted that the dispute had arisen for the first time on 31-10-1994 after a lapse of more than 7 years and thai too on a complaint of the Kanpur Development Authority which was Itself a signatory to the said agreement, and as such no cognizance could have been taken by the respondents on the said complaint.;