Sanjib Banerjee, Kausik Chanda - (1.) The appeal is directed against an order dated March 20, 2019 passed on an application taken out in a disposed of petition under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920. There are additional prayers for leave being granted to the appellant to prefer the appeal and for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The proposed appellant is the appropriate authority of the State to determine the stamp duty payable on documents and, as such, leave is given to the appellant to prefer the appeal. In view of the good grounds shown, the delay of about 233 days in preferring the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken on record.
(2.) The respondents herein applied by way of ACR 7 of 2013, inter alia, under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 and the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Sections 3, 7, 10 and 11 of the 1920 Act were indicated in the cause-title to the petition and Sections 32 and 36 of the Act of 1882 were also mentioned. It is fairly submitted on behalf of the respondents that the relevant petition ought to be regarded as one under the Act of 1920 since the trust was a public charitable trust. Accordingly, the 1882 Act would have no manner of application.
(3.) In course of dealing with ACR 7 of 2013, this Court deemed it fit to provide for one or more of the trust properties to be vested in another set of trustees by requiring one of the original trustees of the public charitable trust to be the settlor in respect of the relevant transfer. The petition was disposed of by an order dated October 15, 2015 as corrected by an order of September 8, 2017. In terms of the relevant order, the transfer of the property or properties was attempted and a deed of transfer prepared. However, a problem arose at the time of registration of the deed of transfer since, according to the respondents, the State demanded that the transfer should be regarded as an ordinary conveyance covered by Article 23 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act as applicable in this State and not by Article 62(e) thereof that pertains to transfer of properties by a trustee to another trustee without consideration. Instead of challenging the State's action or the demand, in whatever form it may have been made, before any other forum or even by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the trustees returned to this Court and made an application in the disposed of ACR 7 of 2013 whereupon, upon notice to the State, the order impugned was passed. Such order, in effect, holds that Article 63(e) of the Schedule to the Stamp Act as applicable in this State would apply to the transfer and it could not be regarded as an ordinary conveyance. The appellant is prejudiced since the order impugned would result in a considerable loss to the Revenue.;