IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12539 of 2026 Decided on: 28. 07.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Madan Gopal Mehta …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge In view of the issue involved in this writ petition and the instructions placed on record by the learned Assistant Advocate General from the concerned Departments, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has accordingly been heard. 2. Petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is to the recovery notice dated 23.05.2026 issued by respondent No.6-the Assistant Collector First Grade-cum-Tehsildar Recovery, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, directing the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 petitioner to deposit amount of Rs.4,42,748/- by 27.07.2026. The demand has been raised upon the petitioner on account of purported shortfall in the registration fee/stamp fee as deposited by the petitioner towards execution of Mining Lease Deed that was executed in his favour by respondents No.2 & 3-Industries Department on 12.10.2017. 3. The case set up by the petitioner is that he has already paid/deposited the requisite registration fee/ stamp fee towards execution of the Mining Lease Deed in his favour in accordance with law; That in terms of the formula/instructions followed by the respondents- Industries Department, petitioner was directed and he accordingly deposited Rs. 24,750/- towards value of stamp duty on the execution of mining lease deed. The impugned recovery notice dated 23.05.2026, requiring deposit of Rs. 4,42,748/- and entailing coercive action in case of non- payment, is not in consonance with law. Petitioner’s grievance was noticed as under in the order passed in this writ petition on 27.07.2026:- “Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 3 Petitioner’s grievance is that the stamp duty charges for the execution of mining lease in his favour was duly computed by the respondent-State Industries Department to be Rs. 24,750/- i.e. by adopting formula (5% x Annual Production x Royalty Period of lease)/100, whereas, the respondent-Revenue Department has been repeatedly raising demand of Rs, 4,42,748/- under this head. Let learned Assistant Advocate General to have instructions from the respondent-Departments vis Industries as also the Revenue Department, more so, in light of Annexure P-10 dated 11.12.2024 issued by the Department of Industries and dated 11.10.2023 (Annexure P-4), issued by respondent No.6, the concerned Revenue Department. List on 28.07.2026 .” 4. Pursuant to above, learned Assistant Advocate General has placed on record two separate sets of instructions, one from the Department of Industries (State Geologist, Himachal Pradesh) and other from the Tehsildar- cum-Sub Registrar, Kumarsain, District Shimla, both dated 27.07.2026. The State Geologist, H.P. in his instructions dated 27.07.2026 reiterates that stamp value for the mining lease deed executed in petitioner’s favour was calculated by applying following formula:- “5% x Prevailing Roualty rate per MT x Lease Period x Annual Production 100” 4 The stamp value was computed as under:- “5% x Rs. 60/- x 15 x 55000= Rs. 24750/-“ The instructions of State Geologist give credence to the case of the petitioner that stamp duty was thus, correctly levied from the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 24,750/-. The relevant portion of the office instructions is as under:- “In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that for the purpose of calculating the value of the Stamp duty for execution of the Mining Lease Deed under question, the Department of Industries had taken into consideration the following variables: 1. Rate of royalty at the time of execution of said Mining lease deed, which was Rs. 60/- per MT. 2. Period of said Mining lease deed i.e. 15 years. 3. Production per annum i.e. 55,000 MTPA as per the Mining Plan duly prepared by the said Lessee through Registered Qualified Person and approved by the Department. Accordingly, the value of the Stamp Paper was calculated by applying the following formula: 5% ×Prevailing Royalty rate per MT Lease Period X Annual Production 100 As such, the stamp value for the Mining lease Deed under question was calculated asunder: 5% x Rs. 60/- x 15 x 55,000 = Rs. 24,750/- Accordingly, the value of the Stamp Paper required for execution of the said Mining Lease Deed was determined at Rs. 24,750/-, based on the then prevailing royalty rate of Rs. 60/-per the lease rid of 15 years, and the approved annual production of 55,000 MTPA.” 5 To the contrary, the instructions dated 27.07.2026 from the office of Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Kumarsain are to the effect that the Accountant General (Audit), Himachal Pradesh, in Audit Para No.2 for the year 2017-18, had pointed out short realization of stamp duty and registration fee of amounting to Rs. 4,57,846/- on two lease deeds due to non-assessment of the market value of the leased land as per the applicable circle rates. In compliance with the audit observations, notices were issued to the petitioner to deposit the deficient amount. 5. It appears that there is difference between the parent Department i.e. Industries Department and the Revenue Department on the issue involved in this writ petition. According to the Industries Department, which had granted the mining lease in favour of the petitioner, the stamp duty has been duly computed for and deposited by the petitioner, whereas, as per the Revenue Department, on account of Audit Para-2 for the year 2017-18, notice was issued to the petitioner for deposit of shortfall in stamp duty as also the registration amounting to Rs.4,57,846/-. There being difference of opinion between the two Departments on the charges if at all leviable from the petitioner, it would be appropriate to direct the two 6 Departments involved i.e. Industries Department as also the Revenue to first sort the matter amongst themselves by convening meeting under the aegis of respondents No. 3 and 4, within a period of six weeks from today. Further action in the matter be taken pursuant to the outcome of the meeting in accordance with law. Till such time, further proceedings based on impugned notice dated 23.05.2026 (Annexure P-12) shall be kept in abeyance. In view of above, the writ petition to stand disposed of accordingly. Needless to clarify that petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law in case he still feels aggrieved. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 28, 2026 Judge R.Atal