TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are the members of Kendriya Upadhyayara Sangha (R) (in short the Sangha ), Bangalore South Taluk, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The Sangha was granted certain land at Jakkasandra Village, South Taluk by the State of Karnataka in order to provide house sites to its members. The sole object of the Sangha is charitable and to protect the interest of its members and not to form the sites and allot to its members with a profit motive. (b) According to the appellant-State, the Sangha has allotted residential sites to its members including the respondents herein by executing Lease- cum-Sale Agreements in their favour after receiving the full sale consideration. The said agreements were registered in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly collected the stamp duty on the sale deed treating it as a principal document. (e) Learned single Judge, by order dated 11.12.2007, in the writ petitions being Nos. 16777, 19358 and 19359 of 2005 filed by respondent Nos.1-3 herein held that the stamp duty collected by the authorities on Lease-cum-Sale Agreement falls under Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Act, therefore, it is a sale agreement with possession, hence, the stamp duty paid is as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, when the documents are placed for registration as a sale deed, they have to pay the stamp duty of the property on the market value as on that day of execution of the sale deed but they are entitled to claim deduction of the amount which they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aded respondent Nos. 4-32. 5) Heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the appellant-State, Mr. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 3 and Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for newly impleaded respondent Nos. 4-32. 6) The following questions which arise for consideration in these appeals are: (i) Whether the State has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 449 days in filing writ appeals against the order of the learned single Judge, who allowed the writ petitions? (ii) Whether the Division Bench was justified in simply affirming the order of the learned single Judge in directing the State to repay the amount collected as stamp duty when Article 5(e) Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he substantial grounds urged by the State. As rightly pointed out by learned senior counsel for the State that though in the last paragraph there is some reference about the reasoning of the learned single Judge, not much attention was given on the merits of the claim made by the State. 9) On these grounds, without expressing anything on merits of the claim of either party, we condone the delay in filing the writ appeals and in the light of our conclusion that the Division Bench has not adverted to any substantial grounds urged by the State, particularly with reference to the provisions of Article 5(e)(i) and Explanation (ii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, we set aside the order of the Division Bench impugned in these appeals an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
