Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) The petitioner - Sri Lal Bahadur Shastri, Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. is a co-operative housing society and a lease deed dated 20.7.1991 was executed by it in favour of one Sri Pramod Kumar Pal, who was a member of the society. The lease was for a period of 999 years and for a premium of Rs.12,500/- and annual rent of Rs.500/-. The area of the plot was 1250 sq. ft. Subsequently, the aforesaid Sri Pramod Kumar Pal, through a deed dated 24.2.1997, surrendered the aforesaid lease in favour of the housing society. Stamp duty of Rs.1,850/- was paid on the same. However, the Assistant Collector (Stamp), District Etawah i.e. respondent no. 2 through his order dated 27.6.2001 held that there was a deficiency of Rs.10,650/- in payment of stamp duty on the aforesaid deed dated 24.2.1997. The aforesaid deficiency was determined treating the deed dated 24.2.1997 as a conveyance and charging the stamp duty on the market value of the property under Article 23, Schedule 1-B of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899'). The order dated 27.6.2001 passed by the Assistant Collector (Stamp), District Etawah was challenged by the petitioner under Section 56 of the Act, 1899 through Revision No. 252 of 2002 which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur i.e. respondent no. 1 vide her order dated 28.2.2002. The orders dated 27.6.2001 and 28.8.2002 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the instrument dated 24.2.1997 related to surrender of lease in favour of the petitioner and therefore under Article 61 (b) of Schedule 1-B of the Act, 1899, as it was in 1997, the stamp duty liable to be paid on the aforesaid deed was the same as a conveyance for a consideration of Rs.500/- i.e. the petitioner was liable to pay a stamp duty of only Rs.62.50/- and the respondent authorities had committed an error of law apparent on the face of record in determining the deficiency in payment of stamp duty treating the deed to be a conveyance under Article 23 read with Section 2(10) of the Act, 1899. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that for the aforesaid reasons, the orders dated 27.6.2001 and 28.8.2002 are illegal and contrary to law and liable to be set-aside by this Court.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant statutory provisions of Article 61 of Schedule 1-B of the Act, 1899 as it existed in 1997 and Article 23, which are quoted below: JUDGEMENT_303_LAWS(ALL)8_2018_1.html JUDGEMENT_303_LAWS(ALL)8_2018_2.html;