DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is a decision dated December 6, 2016 taken by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration by which an application of the petitioner for benefit under the notification dated January 10, 2014 has been turned down.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the mother of the petitioner was one of the members of the co-operative society. The mother of the petitioner had nominated the petitioner as her nominee in respect of the share held by her in the co-operative society. The mother of the petitioner had, thereafter, transferred her share to the petitioner. The co-operative society was yet to construct a building on the land allotted. With the construction of the building, the petitioner became entitled to a conveyance in respect of the flat allotted to the petitioner as a member of the co-operative society. The petitioner had applied for the benefits of the notification dated January 10, 2014. The authorities have denied the benefit to the petitioner on the ground that, the transfer of the interest of the mother of the petitioner in the cooperative society is to be taken as the first transfer and that, the conveyance between the co-operative society and the petitioner will not get the benefit of remission of stamp duty in terms of the notification dated January 10, 2014 as it would be the second transfer. He relies upon 1977 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases page 247 (Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam and Anr.) and 2011 Volume 4 Calcutta High Court Notes (Cal) page 405 (Fort William Industries Ltd. v. Official Liquidator).and submits that, a transfer of the interest of the mother of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner prior to the construction of the building by the co-operative society would not mean a transfer of title in an immovable property by the mother of the petitioner. He submits that, such a transfer was not required to be compulsorily registered. Therefore, the conveyance to be executed by the co-operative society in favour of the petitioner would be the first transfer and would, therefore, come within the remission permitted by the notification dated January 10, 2014.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that, the petitioner is the second transferee and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of remission of stamp duty as contemplated in the notification dated January 10, 2014. Such notification permits a remission of stamp duty in respect of the transfer between the co-operative society to its member. Membership having been transferred to the petitioner, such transfer would be considered as the first transfer and, therefore, the petitioner is to be considered as the second transferee. She relies upon Section 76 and Section 92 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006. She submits that, the mother had executed a deed of gift in favour of the petitioner in respect of the share held by the mother in the cooperative society. She refers to the application seeking exemption made on behalf of the petitioner and the admission made therein of the fact that, the mother of the petitioner had transferred the membership in favour of the petitioner.;