Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.1.2007 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Jalaun, Orai and the judgment and order dated 3.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi which he passed in his Revisional jurisdiction.
(2.) The facts of the case are that a lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 18.2.2005. On a report dated 5.8.2006, of the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Jalaun, a case was registered and the petitioner was put to notice. The petitioner replied and thereafter when its reply was not found satisfactory, by order dated 8.1.2007 a deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 3,35,200/- was found by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Jalaun, Orai. The petitioner filed a revision which was also dismissed on 3.4.2008 by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi. Aggrieved thereof the instant writ petition has been filed.
(3.) The contention of Sri Anil Kumar Vajpayee, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the very premise on the basis of which the stamp duty has been imposed was wrong. The authorities had under Article 35(a)(vi) of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act considered the lease to be one in perpetuity and had charged the instrument at the rates provided for instruments which were to be charged under Article 35(a)(vi) and not as an instrument chrgeable under Article 35(a)(iv) of the Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act 1899. Learned counsel for the petitioner read out both the Articles and so the same are being reproduced here as under: "35(a)(iv) where the lease purports to be for a term exceeding ten years but not exceeding twenty years. 35(a)(vi)where the lease purports to be for a term exceeding thirty years or in perpetuity or does not purport to be for any definite term.";