AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal is reported to be barred by limitation for 721 days.
It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, however, the appeal is not accompanied by certified copy of the judgment impugned.
Having gone through the application, we do not find the explanation furnished for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal to be plausible and acceptable and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation, however, in the interest of justice, we have examined the matter on merits as well.
This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th of September 2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby writ petition preferred by the respondent/writ- petitioner assailing the action of the respondents in treating the lease-deed executed in its favour as Conveyance for the purpose of charging stamp duty, has been allowed.
The writ petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed by the learned Single Judge relying upon a coordinate bench decision in SBCWP No.8734/2018 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Sunderlal & Ors.) decided on 23.09.2018. The learned Single Judge observed that the case of the respondent even stands in more favourable position than Sunderlal. The observations read as under: -
"In the case at hand, the situation is even more fravourable (Sic! favourable) to the petitioner because there is no stipulation of automatic renewal of lease in the original lease deed dated 07.09.1998. Manifestly, mere renewal of the lease deed after the expiry of the original period of twenty years, would not give rise to any inference that the agreement was itself in the nature of conveyance within the meaning of Article 33
(a) (iii) of the schedule appended to the Stamps Act. Needless to say that after expiry of original lease period a fresh lease deed has been executed inter se between the parties and thus the same has to be construed as a lease deed simplicitor and the period of original lease cannot be added therein so as to bring the document within the meaning of conveyance.
In view of above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the view taken by the learned Collector (Stamps), Jodhpur in the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 (Annex.7) branding the lease deed to be a conveyance on the ground of the agreement being for a period of more than twenty years is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be upheld. Thus the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 (Annex.7) passed by the Collector (Stamps), Jodhpur is Reference No.39/2015 and the demand raised thereunder to the tune of Rs.19,09,195/- of additional stamp duty from the petitioner is struck down."
Learned Additional Advocate General fairly submitted that as per Clause (7) of the lease-deed, if the lessee is desirous of renewing the lease-deed on expiration of its term, is required to give notice to the lessor in writing prior to expiration of the term and shall have to pay rent and taxes and, therefore, in terms of the lease-deed, the lease-deed is not automatically renewable and cannot be treated to be lease for the period beyond twenty years.
In this view of the matter, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
No interference by us in intra-court appeal jurisdiction is made out.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act stands disposed of.