- (1.) HEARD Sri B. P. Kushwaha, holding brief of Sri G. S. L. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel. In the instant writ petition the short controversy involved is as to what should be stamp duty to be levied on security deposit. This controversy is no more res-integra and has fully been concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Tajveer Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 1997 (2) AWC 1029, wherein their Lordships relying on various authorities, held that the sum which is offered as security is not a mortgage and, therefore, is not liable to stamp duty under Article 35 (C) of the Stamp Act. It has further been held that the amount of security paid for the performance of the control of lease is chargeable under Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, does not propose to file any counter affidavit and fairly submits that the aforesaid decision applies to the facts of the present case and, therefore, this petition may be disposed of in similar terms. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Tajveer Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others (Supra), and the impugned order dated 24. 03. 2008 is hereby quashed. It will, however, be open to the respondents to realise the stamp duty from the petitioner in accordance with the provisions contained in Article 57 Schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act. .;