JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayer: (i) to quash and set aside the orders dated May 23, 1996 and January 1, 1999, (ii) to direct respondents to treat the lease deed dated July 7, 1995 properly stamped. (iii) to restrain the respondents from charging stamp duty and registration fees on lease deed dated July 7, 1995, 2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner No. 1 M/s. Mangal Transformers & Electricals (for short 'Firm') is registered partnership firm having its office at C-953-A, VKI Area Jaipur. The petitioner No. 2 is partner. A lease deed was executed by RIICO in respect of lease hold rights of land Plot No. C-953(A) measuring 1115 sq. meters on March 22, 1992 for a consideration of Rs. 65,688.00. The stamp duty was paid Rs. 7718.00. The lessee firm consisted of K.M. Mangal, Hariom Mangal and Rakesh Mangal. The constitution of the firm underwent two changes on July 23, 1994 and on August 6, 1994. By the first change Dwarka Das Somani and Smt. Saroj Somani were inducted as partners and by the second change Mangal brothers retired and Dwarka Das Somani and Smt. Saroj Somani remained partners of the firm having share to the extent of 50%. The first change was made due inability of the original partners to run the firm and second change was made realising their inability to work together. The Firm remained owner of the subject land. To regularise the changes the petitioners and RIICO executed a fresh lease deed upon stamps of Rs. 3420/- and the same was presented for registration on July 7, 1995. The stamp duty was paid upon valuation of the lease hold land as determined by RIICO. The change in the constitution of firm does not result into a transfer of any of the assets from original partners to new partners. It is averred in the writ petition that such an arrangement was recognised in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Royal Amber Resorts, 1987 Vol. 164 ITR 311 . Otherwise also the arrangement cannot be deemed to a transaction of transfer. On presentation of the lease agreement the authority suo moto valued the property of As. 7,51,328/- applying the rate of land @ Rs. 200/- per sq. meter and included value of Rs. 5,28,328/- in respect of unfinished factory shed. 164 ITR 311 . Otherwise also the arrangement cannot be deemed to a transaction of transfer. On presentation of the lease agreement the authority suo moto valued the property of As. 7,51,328/- applying the rate of land @ Rs. 200/- per sq. meter and included value of Rs. 5,28,328/- in respect of unfinished factory shed. It applied the rate of land 10% instead of 6%. The authority making a report dated October 16, 1995 initiated the proceeding under section 47-A(2) of Indian Stamps Act, 1899 as adopted by Rajasthan Stamps Law (Adaptation Act, 1952) (Rajasthan Act No. 7 of 1952) read with rule 66-A of the Rajasthan Stamps Rules, 1955. The authority held deficient stamp duty amounting to As. 71,713/- and registration charges Rs. 1500/-. Accordingly the notice dated September 5, 1995 was issued to pay deficit stamp duty. The petitioner submitted reply denying the valuation as made by the authority, the respondent No. 1 issued notice on December 22, 1995 demanding explanation as to why the deficit stamp duty be not realised from the firm. The petitioners submitted reply to this notice along with the report of valuation prepared by V.S. Khubchandani, BE (Civil) FIS. But the respondent No. 1 vide order dated May 23, 1996 accepted the valuation of the authority. The petitioners filed revision petition, which came to be dismissed on January 1, 1999. 3. I have heard rival submissions. 4. In Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 Raj. 262 , Division Bench of this Court held that valuation is to be made on basis of what was sought to be really conveyed through deeds presented only to be looked into. 5. In M/s. Bhilwara Spinner Ltd. Gandhi Nagar v. The Collector Stamps Bhilwara, 1999 (1) WLC (Raj.) 151 where original lease was executed between State and R. R requested part of leasehold to be settled with B accordingly lease was executed between B and State. This court held s that the case was of surrender by R followed by fresh lease to B and no case of assignment between R and B was found. It was held that the duty leviable on deed is under Art. 35(a)(iii) as on conveyance on basis of average annual rent. 6. This court held s that the case was of surrender by R followed by fresh lease to B and no case of assignment between R and B was found. It was held that the duty leviable on deed is under Art. 35(a)(iii) as on conveyance on basis of average annual rent. 6. In S.V. Chandra Pandian v. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar, (1993) 1 SCC 589 , the Apex Court held that entire property whether brought in by the partners on constitution of partnership or acquired in course of business of the partnership would constitute property of the firm. When the residue is distributed by allocating any property to a partner proportionately to his share, no partition or transfer takes place nor is there any extinguishment of 5 interest of other partners in the allocated property. 7. Having closely scanned the deed in question. I find that it was only a fresh lease deed executed between RIICO and new partners of the petitioner firm. The property referred to in the deed would constitute property of the firm. The respondents were duty bound to value the lease deed on the basis o the averments made in it. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. For these reasons, I allow the writ petitions and quash the orders dated May 23, 1996 and January 1, 1999. The respondents are directed to treat the lease deed dated July 7, 1995 properly stamped. There shall be no 5 order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******