JUDGMENT B. L. Yadav, J. 1. These analogous five Writ petitions, involve similar questions of fact and law for determination hence it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgement. The points in these petitions is as to whether Bid-Sheets, signed by1 the parties containing terms of auction sale, would be covered by the definition of 'instrument' as defined under section 2 (14) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (for short the Act) and the definition of Lease under section 2 (16) of the Act. In Writ Petition No. 10624 of 1980. 2. Relief sought is for the issuance of writ of certiorari quashing demand notice dated 5th November, 1977, (Annexture-12 to the writ petition), which was to the effect that the petitioner hid obtained lease on 18th July, 1971 for five years but did not take initiative to get the deed executed. Instruments including bid- sheet signed by the parties, were perused and it was found that a sum of Rs. 395/- was payable by the petitioners as deficiency in stamp duty and sum of Rs. 3,265/- as penalty, total sum of Rs. 8660/- was payable by the petitioner. Similarly In Writ Petition No. 10695 of 1980. The demand notice dated 5-11-11977 (Annexure 12 to the writ) for a sum of Rs. 12015/- was payable as deficiency in stamp duty and sum of Rs. 3420/- as penalty was sought to be quashed. In Writ Petition No. 10720 of 1980. 3. The demand notice dated 13-10-1980 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) for a sum of Rs. 8450/- as deficiency in stamp duty and sum of Rs. 13600/- as penalty was sought to be quashed. In Writ Petition No. 10722 of 1980. 4. The demand notice dated 13th October, 1978 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) for a sum of Rs. 6045/- as deficiency in stamp duty and a sum of Rs. 415/- as penalty, total sum of Rs. 10160/- was sought to be quashed- In Writ Petition No. 585 of 1980. The demand notice dated 13th October, 1978 (Annexure 12 to (he writ petition) for a sum of Rs. 8670/- as deficiency in stamp duty and sum of Rs. 6290/- as penalty was sought to be quashed. 5. The factual matrix of the casts lie in a narrow compass and they are these. Plot Nos. The demand notice dated 13th October, 1978 (Annexure 12 to (he writ petition) for a sum of Rs. 8670/- as deficiency in stamp duty and sum of Rs. 6290/- as penalty was sought to be quashed. 5. The factual matrix of the casts lie in a narrow compass and they are these. Plot Nos. 1 to 10 were the sullage farm within the Municipal Board, Ghaziabad, and were auctioned for the period of eight years for the agricultural purposes. The auction sale was accepted on behalf of the Municipal Board on 18th July, 1971 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), The petitioner's highest bid in these connected writ petitions were accepted. The petitioners were directed to deposit the amount in accordance with the agreements as contained in the Bid-Sheet; and to get the IKARARNAMA registered. The petitioners of these writ petitions were to get possession of the plots thereafter. But they were given possession over plots for five year's terms (vide Annexure 4 to the writ petition). The notices were served on the petitioners on 10th July, 1976 (by the Executive Officer stating that they were to get the possession over plots by 9th July, 1976. After examining the Bid-Sheet containing the terms and conditions of the auction sale acceptable to both the parties i.e. the petitioners and also the Municipal Board, Vide (Annexure 13 to the counter affidavit) as the requisite stamp was not paid on the instrument i.e. Bid-Sheet hence impugned orders were passed and notices were issued. The averment made in the para 13 in the counter affidavit to the effect that Bid-Sheet contained terms of auction sals, the petitioner's bid being highest and that they must get the lease deed executed were accepted in para 14 of the Rejoinder Affidavit. It was also stated that Bid-Sheet being also instrument as defined under section 2 (14) of the Act and would be covered by the inclusive definition of 'lease' under section 2 (16) of the Act and would be changeable as 'lease' under Article 35 (as amended in State of U. P.) has beets accepted in para 14 of the Rejoinder Affidavit that even though the Bid-Sheet was signed by the petitioners and accepted by the respondent No. 1, butt it cannot create any right or liability. In para 12 of the Rejoinder Affidavit it has been averred that the Bid-Sheet was signed by the parties. 6. In para 12 of the Rejoinder Affidavit it has been averred that the Bid-Sheet was signed by the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Bid-Sheet was not covered by the definition of the 'lease' as given 2 (16) of the Indian Stamp Act (as amended in its application in the State of U. P.). Nor it was covered under 'instrument' defined in 2 (14) of the Indian Stamp Act (as amended in its application in the State of U. P.). The Bid-Sheet did not include Ikararnama similarly in other documents, other than lease, stamp duty cannot be imposed under Article 35 of Schedule 1-B enforcing stamp duty and penalty on the petitioners. Hence the same is liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed on Jagdish Lala v. Collector Budaun, AIR 1979, All. 307, (S.B.), Trilok Chand v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, AIR 1979 All. 307 , (S.B), Mohd. Yaqoob Khan v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority AIR 1979 All. 307 , (SB ). Sri Prem Chandra, the learned counsel for the respondents urged that the term 'instrument' has been defined under section 2 (14) of the Act. The term 'lease' is defined under section 2 (16) of the Act. These definitions are not exhaustive. The Bid-Sheet would be included under expression 'instrument' and would be covered with the definition of term 'lease' under section 2 (16) (b) and (c) of the Act and stamp duty was payable under Article 35 (Schedule 1-B, as amended in U. P.) under para 14 of the Rejoinder Affidavit it was admitted to the petitioners that the Bid-Sheet containing terms and conditions of auction sale was signed by the parties, similarly under pare 23 of the counter affidavit it was avered that the Bid- Sheet was signed by the parties. According to averments under paras 12 to 14 of the counter-affidavit,, the petitioners have been given the possession over the plots but failed to pay the amount payable under Bid-Sheet and stamp duty and penalty imposed upon them. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties the points that fall for determinations are, as to whether the Bid-Sheet containing terms and conditions of the auction sale, signed by the parties was as "instrument " and whether stamp duty was payable on it as 'lease' in view of Article 25 of Schedule 1-B (as amended in U. P.). 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties the points that fall for determinations are, as to whether the Bid-Sheet containing terms and conditions of the auction sale, signed by the parties was as "instrument " and whether stamp duty was payable on it as 'lease' in view of Article 25 of Schedule 1-B (as amended in U. P.). Section 2 (16) of the Indian Stamp Act defines 'lease'. In so far as it Is material for the purpose of the present case, it reads: 'Lease :- Lease means a lease of immovable property and includes also- (a)......... (b) A Kabuliat or other undertaking in writing not being counter part of a lease, to cultivate, occupy or pay deliverant for immovable property. (c) Any instrument by which tolls of any description are to let. The term 'Instrument' has been defined in section 2 (14) reads as follows :- "Instrument", includes every documents by which any right or liability is, or purports to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. 8. Before proceeding further it is useful to notice certain principles of interpretations of statutes relevant for our purpose. The preamble to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, evinces that it is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to stamps. The whole of the statute law is reduced In a systematic form in a consolidating Act. The earlier judicial decisions are also taken into account. The interpretations of codifying Act is different than Consolidating and Amending Act. In interpretating consolidating and Amending Act, the court is entitled to Make into consideration the earlier decisions. While enacting a code the legislature is presumed to have noticed and incorporated previous judicial decisions. The consolidating Act, however, does not effect any substantial charge in tie pre-existing law. In Galloway v. Galloway, (1956) AC 229, at p. 306 Loard Radshiffe said that the function of a consolidation Act is mainly respect the existing law with slight change. It is to be noticed that the Act contains fiscal provisions and has a fiscal mission- Such provisions are to be strictly construed without making any assumptions and presumptions. At the same time latitudinarian rules of construction with a view to give to persons called upon to pay stamp duty and penalty are out of place as the legislation has fiscal mission. At the same time latitudinarian rules of construction with a view to give to persons called upon to pay stamp duty and penalty are out of place as the legislation has fiscal mission. The object of the legislation is to be kept in mind where literal interpretation leads to a result not intended to subserve the object of legislation. (See Union of India v, Kanungo Industries, AIR 1990 SC 2190 , Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1990 SC 781 , Keshevji Ravji and Co. v. Commissioner Income Tax, 1990 (2) SCC 231 , 9. It is, however, well settled that so long as language used is unambiguous, a departure from its natural meaning is not justified by any considerations of its consequences or of public policy. The court need not adopt a strained construction in order to avoid an incongruity or heardship. 10. The definition of word 'Instrument' under section 2 (14) opens with the word 'includes', and not 'means'. Similarly definition of word 'lease' under section 2 (16) opens with the word 'means' and includes both. Lease means lease of immovable property and includes also :- (a) Petta. (b) a Kabuliat or other undertakings in writing etc When ever a definition opens with word includes it means that it is not exhaustive and hence section 2 (14) and also section 2 (16) must be given an extensive meaning and are not restricted to only those documents, specifically mentions in it. A definition which opens with word 'means' it is a hard and fast definition, and no other meaning can be assigned to it than is put down in the expression. See Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd, v. Presiding Officer, (1990) 3 sc 682. 11. As definition of the word 'instrument' opens with word includes, it is very exhaustive in nature and apart from the instruments indicated therein namely by which any right or liability to be created, transferred, limited or extended it would cover other instruments of similar nature. 12. In Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines the terms 'instrument' as a document or agreement for the purposes of creating, transferring, modifying rights. Similarly the definition of word 'lease' opens with word includes in section 2 (16) (a) (b) and (c) and is very exhaustive in nature. The sub- Clauses (b) and (c) of section 2 (16), however, overlap. 12. In Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines the terms 'instrument' as a document or agreement for the purposes of creating, transferring, modifying rights. Similarly the definition of word 'lease' opens with word includes in section 2 (16) (a) (b) and (c) and is very exhaustive in nature. The sub- Clauses (b) and (c) of section 2 (16), however, overlap. But considering the nature of 'instrument' Bid-sheet, as it contains terms and conditions of auction sale and is agreed upon and signed by the parties, it would be covered under the definition of term instrument' by which tolls of any description are to let as given under section 2 (16) (c). The Bid-Sheet in10 the present case was signed by the0 petitioner and also accepted and signed by the respondents. It has been admitted by the petitioners in different paragraphs of the Rejoinder affidavit, that Bid Sheet by which rights and liability in respect of letting out of the sullage farm were contained, was signed by the parties. The Bid-Sheet signed by the parties creates rights and liability of the parties. The rights to cultivate the sullage farm was transferred from the respondents to the petitioners. The bid-sheet was accordingly covered by the definition 'instrument' as defined under section 2 (14) and was covered within the definition of 'lease' section 2 (16) (c). We are conscious about the principles of interpretations of a consolidating and Amending Statute and also the expressions 'means' and 'includes' in the definition clause under section 2 (14) and 2 (16). The stamp duty on Bid-Sheet has correctly been levied under Article 35, )as amended in its application in U. P.). 13. Reverting to the cases cited at the bar, Jagdish Lala v. Collector, Budaun, AIR 1979 All 307 , (Supra) was a case in which the terms and conditions of the auction sale were contained in the Bid-sheet signed by the parties. This was held to be covered by the definition of 'instrument' and under section 2 (14) and also under section 2 (16) (c) i. e. the tolls of any description to let. This case is oil no assistance to the petitioner. 14. Trilok Chand v. Chief Controlling Revenus Authority, AIR 1979 All, SB was also a case indicating that terms and conditions contained in the Bid-Sheet was precisely an agreement enforceable in law and was charageable with stamp duty. This case is oil no assistance to the petitioner. 14. Trilok Chand v. Chief Controlling Revenus Authority, AIR 1979 All, SB was also a case indicating that terms and conditions contained in the Bid-Sheet was precisely an agreement enforceable in law and was charageable with stamp duty. This case also could not help the petitioners. Similarly Mohd Yaqoob Khan v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, AIR 1979 All, SB was a case where actually Bid-Sheet did contain the terms and conditions accepted by the parties and was held chargeable with stamp duty. In the present case, Bid-Sheet contains the terms and conditions of the auction sale and it was accepted by the petitioners and also on behalf of the Municipal Board as it has been stated in the counter Affidavit and same has been accepted in the Rejoinder Affidavit. Hence the aforesaid case cannot be said to be of any help to the petitioner. In view of discussions made: we are, of the opinions that Bid-Sheet was covered within the definition of 'instrument' and 'lease' as defined under section 2 (14) and 2 (16) and was chargeable with stamp duty under Article 35. The penalty has been correctly imposed. The impugned demand notices are correct and there is no justifications for interference. 15. In the result, these petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. The interim orders are vacated. Petition dismissed.