The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has challenged the order dated 31.3.2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Stamp, Muzaffarnagar, whereby he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 51000/- under Section 33 read with Section 40 B of the Stamp Act and the revisional order dated 30.4.2002 whereby his revision has been dismissed by the Commissioner, the respondent no. 1.
Shorn of, unnecessary details, short facts are that Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli held an auction for the grant of a contract in respect of Tehbazari for the year 1996-97. The petitioner has participated in the auction and he was the highest bidder. His bid for 3,51,000/- was accepted and an agreement was executed on a non judicial stamp costing Rs. 100/-.
Although, the petitioner has disputed the said agreement on the ground that it does not bear any signature either by the petitioner or by the Chairman, the Additional Commissioner Stamp issued a notice to the petitioner for deficiency of the stamp and the case was registered as case no. 81 of 2001 under the provision of the Indian Stamp Act. The petitioner has submitted his objection supported by an affidavit dated 31.3.2001. His objection was that no agreement was executed and only a simple agreement just to put the agreement in black and white was written on a non judicial stamp paper worth Rs. 100/-. The stand taken in the writ petition, the paragraph no. 4 of the writ petition is extracted herein below;
"4. That a simple agreement just to put the agreement in black and white was written on a 100 Rs. Non-judicial stamp. Annexure 'I' is the copy of the aforesaid agreement."
The respondent no. 2 found that the petitioner was liable to pay stamp duty on a sum of Rs. 3,51,000/- at the rate of Rs. 14.5 percent in terms of Section 33 read with Section 40 B of the Stamp Act and also imposed fine to the tune of Rs. 101/-. Thus, the total stamp of Rs. 51000/- was found deficient and he was directed to deposit the aforesaid amount. His revision has also been dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an agreement which has been enclosed as annexure-1 to the writ petition is not a lease and it is simply a license. He has also disputed his signature and submitted that it is not an instrument in terms of the provision of the Stamp Act. He further submitted that in any view of the matter the document may be treated as only a license and not the lease.
Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has signed on the bid sheet. Petitioner has also signed the deed of Tah-e-Bazar and he paid only of Rs. 100/- as Stamp duty. While their instrument was chargeable with duty as per Article 35 (b) of Scheduled 1-B read with Section 2 (16) of Indian Stamp Act. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Jagdish Lala Vs. Collector, AIR 1979 ACC 307.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the respective parties.
It is a common ground that the petitioner was the highest bidder. In the auction held for Tehbazari for the year 1996-97 for a sum of Rs. 3,51,000/-, the only dispute is in regard to the fact that whether any agreement was executed and if the said agreement was executed whether it would fall within the definition of lease or license. Comming to the first question that the petitioner has signed his Fird/Boli/Neelam and the said document bears thumb impression of the petitioner. This averment has been made in paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit. However, petitioner chose not to file rejoinder affidavit. The averment made in paragraph no. 7 stands uncontroverted. Moreover, the petitioner himself has enclosed the agreement as annexure-1 to the writ petition. Although, he has described the said document as a simple agreement just to put the agreement in black and white was written on a 100/- Rs. Non judicial stamp. Indisputably, the petitioner has completed the term of his contract for the year 1996-97. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that the claim of the petitioner that there was no agreement is demonstrably incorrect.
Coming to the next point of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such type of the agreement is a license and not the lease, this legal submission by now has been considered in large number of cases.
The issue was referred to the Full Bench in the case of Jagdish Lala and another Vs. the Collector, Budaun and others, AIR 1979 Alld 348, a bid was accepted and the bid sheet was prepared and signed by the parties. The said bid was approved by the Municipal Board. Before the Full Bench, the question arose whether the bid sheet can be treated as an agreement creating right and liability. The full Bench found that bid was signed by the bidder and it can be held to be an agreement to lease, thus, dutiable under Article 35 (b) of schedule 1 -B of the Stamp Act. The Spl.Bench has considered an earlier decision of full bench in Mohd Yaqoob Khan and another Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, AIR 1997 All 93 (Full Bench).
The relevant part of the judgment in case of Jagdish Lala and another Vs. the Collector, Budaun and others is extracted herein below;
"10. The next question that arises in the present case is whether the bid sheet fulfilled the requirements of an agreement so as to be covered by Art. 35 (b) of Sch. I-B. We have extracted the terms and conditions of the agreement at the very threshold. These terms leave no room for doubt that the parties had agreed to give and take the lease. It was, however, argued that since the holding of the auction was not in itself an offer to sell but only an " invitation to treat", the contractors' bid was not an acceptance and did not constitute an agreement. The submission even if be assumed to be correct, it does not justify the view that an agreement had not been arrived at inasmuch as when the contractors participated in the auction and offered the highest bid, they would be deemed to have made the offer and by the subsequent conduct of accepting the bid made by the contractors, the offer would be deemed to have been accepted by the Municipal board. The terms of the agreement having been specially stated, and the same were enforceable, the bid sheet was, therefore, an agreement."
In the present case, the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner had signed the bid sheet and he has completed the one year contract of the year 1996-97 and as such order of the Controlling authority is justified and does not warrant any interference.
In the similar facts, in the case of Indrabhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (3) 2091, the learned Single Judge has treated the bid sheet of the auction of Tehbazari rights for collection of stand fees was of lease and has followed the judgment of the Full Bench of Jagdish Lala case ( supra). It will be useful to reproduce the reasoning given by this Court;
" The question that arose in that petition was whether the bid sheet when it was signed by the highest bidders amounted to an agreement creating right or liability. It was held by the Full Bench that the bid sheet neither creates nor purports to create any right or liability and it was in consequence held that it ails to satisfy the requirements of an instrument muchless an instrument."
The facts of the present case are identical with the case of Indrabhan Singh ( supra).
From the aforesaid, what emerges is that a contract which has been awarded in pursuance of the auction has the complexion of a lease and therefore, stamp duty is payable under Article 35 schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act.
In view of the said law, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. It lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
However, no order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.5.2012 Gss