JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of the present petition under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed as under: "17(A) That this Hon'ble Court would be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order deemed fit, just and proper quashing and setting aside order dated 31/03/2006 (Annexure "E") passed by respondent No. 1 as unconstitutional, illegal, against the principles of natural justice and in light of the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act in the interest of justice. (B) That this Hon'ble Court would be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order deemed fit, just and proper directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.45,100/- with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. in the interest of justice. (C) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, this Hon'ble Court would be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders dated 31/03/2006 (Annexure "E") and 16/23-07-2007 (Annexure "I") in the interest of justice. (D) To grant an ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (C) hereinabove, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. (E) To grant any other and further relief as deemed just and proper." 2. Pursuant to the Notice issued by this Court, the respondent authority has filed two Affidavits and opposed grant of any reliefs, as prayed for, by the petitioner. 3. Brief facts, arise from the record, are as under: That the petitioner - M/s. Sonata Ceramica (P) Ltd. is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Village: Gadhoda, Taluka: Himmatnagar, District: Sabarkantha, availed a loan from Bank of Baroda - a Nationalized Bank by way of deposit of title-deeds on 07/04/2003. The petitioner again requested the Bank to give additional loan amount by executing Supplemental Memorandum on 05/07/2004 and availed the loan of Rs.210 Lacs. By executing the said Supplementary Memorandum, it was declared that the loan is availed by way of further equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds of the properties, as referred in Schedule in the said Memorandum. The petitioner again requested the Bank to give additional loan amount by executing Supplemental Memorandum on 05/07/2004 and availed the loan of Rs.210 Lacs. By executing the said Supplementary Memorandum, it was declared that the loan is availed by way of further equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds of the properties, as referred in Schedule in the said Memorandum. It is further declared that the amount shall be repaid with interest, additional interest, compound interest, cost, charge and expenses, created there under shall be a continuing security to the Bank for due repayment, discharge and redemption to the Bank. The said document was stamped, however, the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Sabarkantha, Himmatnagar, established under the Bombay Stamp Act, found that the petitioner was bound to pay the stamp duty according to the provisions of Article 36(b) of Schedule-I of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and, therefore, issued a Notice on 24/01/2006 and asked the petitioner to pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,80,000/-. After hearing the petitioner, it was held by Deputy Collector on 31/03/2006 that the case of the petitioner would fall under Article 36(b) of Schedule-I since it is a case of simple mortgage and not u/s. 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as claimed by the petitioner. The said petition was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal being Appeal No. 74 of 2006 u/s. 53(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act. Respondent No. 1 by judgment and order dated 16/07/2007 dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. B.P. Munshi, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that both the authorities below have committed an error in not treating the case of the petitioner u/s. 58 (f) of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He would submit that by executing Supplemental Memorandum only title-deeds were submitted to the Bank and no possession of the property was handed over when the advance loan was availed from the Bank. He would submit that by executing Supplemental Memorandum only title-deeds were submitted to the Bank and no possession of the property was handed over when the advance loan was availed from the Bank. By taking me through the said Supplemental Memorandum, he would further submit that the petitioner had handed over only title-deeds of the property and possession of the property was not handed over to the Bank and, therefore, the case would fall u/s. 58(f) of The Transfer of Property Act and the case would not fall under Article 36(b) of Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty as per Article 6(1)(i) of Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act and not under Article 20, as held by the authorities below. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Ritu Guru, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has opposed this petition and has submitted that the authorities below have examined the title-deed in question and have rightly came to the conclusion that the transaction, which has taken place between the petitioner and the Bank, is a simple mortgage and the case is not covered u/s. 58(f) of The Transfer of Property Act. She would submit that the case of the petitioner would not fall u/s. 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act since the mortgage deed in question is a simple mortgage. She would further submit that even otherwise, the property is situated at Village: Gadhoda, Taluka: Himmatnagar, which is not one of the cities/towns, specified by the State Government for the purpose of section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. By taking me through the Notification dated 2/12/1980 issued by the Revenue Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, she would submit that various Districts of State of Gujarat are referred in the list, which are specified for the purpose of section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. She would submit that Village : Gadhoda, where the property in question is situated, is not covered under the said Notification and, therefore, there is no question of applicability of levy of stamp duty as per Article 6 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act. She would submit that the petition is merit less and, therefore, the same is required to be dismissed. 6. She would submit that the petition is merit less and, therefore, the same is required to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the orders impugned in the petition as well as Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the respondent as well as Notification dated 02/12/1980 issued by the Revenue Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. If the document in question is perused, the petitioner had agreed to continue security to the bank, which was given on 07/04/2003 when initially loan was availed by the petitioner by way of deposit of title-deeds of the property. Relevant abstract of the Supplemental Memorandum is reproduced herein below: "On the same day, The mortgagors No. 1 and 2 further orally confirmed to the said Shri Manubhai M. Patel, Sr. Branch Manager of the Bank, that the equitable mortgage created by the company on 7th day of April 2003 by deposit of title deeds in respect of the said immovable properties shall be also extended as and by way of further equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds by constructive delivery so as to be a continuing security for the due repayment of additional term loan finance of Rs.210.00 lacs, aggregating Rs.500.00 lacs together with interest, compound interest and/or additional interest, cost, charge and expenses and the original equitable mortgage and the present charge created hereunder shall henceforth be a continuing security to the Bank for due repayment, discharge and redemption by the company to the Bank for its:..." It is clear from the above paragraph that though the mortgagee has not delivered the possession, however had agreed to pay the interest, compound interest, additional interest, cost, charges and expenses and, therefore, it is not a case of only deposit of title deeds but to create other rights to the mortgagor. Articles 6 and 36 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act prevailing at the time of executing title-deeds, reads as under:- Description of Instrument Proper Stamp-duty 6. Articles 6 and 36 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act prevailing at the time of executing title-deeds, reads as under:- Description of Instrument Proper Stamp-duty 6. AGREEMENT OR MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT RELATING TO DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS, PAWN OR PLEDGE, that is to say any instrument evidencing an agreement or memorandum of agreement relating to- (1) the deposit of title deeds or instruments constituting or being evidence or the title to any property whatever (other than a marketable security), or (2) the pawn or pledge of movable property, where such deposit, pawn or pledge has been made by way of security for the repayment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan or an existing of future dept- (a) if such loan or debt is repayable on demand or more than three months from the date of the instrument evidencing the agreement:- (i) where the amount of loan or dept does not exceed Rs.10,000 Rs.100/- (ii) where it exceeds Rs.10,000 but does not exceed Rs.50,000 Rs.200/- (iii) where it exceeds Rs.50,000 but does not exceed Rs.1,00,000 Rs.500/- (iv) where it exceeds Rs.1,00,000 but does not exceed Rs.5,00,0000 Rs.1,000/- (v) where it exceeds Rs.5,00,000 but does not exceed Rs.10,00,000 Rs.1,500/- (vi) where it exceeds Rs.10,00,000 but does not exceed Rs.15,00,000 Rs.2,000/- (vii) where it exceeds Rs.15,00,000 but does not exceed Rs.30,00,000 Rs.5,000/- (viii) where it exceeds Rs.30,00,000 Rs.10,000/- (b) if such loan or debt is repayable not more than three months from the date of such instrument Half the duty payable under sub-clause (a)- 36. MORTGAGE DEED, not being an Agreement relating to Deposit of Title Deeds, Pawn or Pledge (No.6), Bottomry Bond (No.15) Mortgage of a Crop (No.37), Respondentia Bond (No.50) or Security Bond (No. 51) - (a) When possession of the property or any part of the property comprised in such deed is or is not given, or is agreed to be given, by the mortgagor; The same duty as is leviable on a conveyance under Article 20 for the amount secured by such deed (b) When a collateral or auxilliary or additional or substituted security, or by way of further assurance for the above mentioned purpose where the principal or primary security is duly stamped Five rupees for every sum of Rs.1000 secured or part thereof. On combined reading of Articles 6 and 36 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act, I am of the opinion that the case would fall under Article 36 since the petitioner had agreed for payment of various charges and, therefore, the authorities below have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders. 7. So far as submission made by Mr. B.P. Munshi, learned advocate for the petitioner that the case falls under Section 58(f) of The Transfer of Property Act is concerned, the said provision reads as under: "58. "Mortgage", "mortgagor", "mortgagee", "mortgage-money" and "mortgage-deed" defined.-- (a)..... (b)..... (c)..... (d)..... (e)..... (f) Mortgage by deposit of title-deeds.--Where a person in any of the following towns, namely, the towns of Calcutta, Madras, [and Bombay], and in any other town which the [State Government concerned] may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title to immovable property, with intent to create a security thereon, the transaction is called a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds." Now State of Gujarat had issued Notification dated 02/12/1980, wherein certain towns have been included for the purposes of treating a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds for the purpose of section 58(f) of The Transfer of Property Act. In item No. 15 of the said Notification, certain towns of Sabarkantha Districts are referred, however, property in question, which is situated at Village: Gadhoda, is not included in the said Notification and, therefore also, the case would not be covered u/s. 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. 8. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is merit less and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. At this stage, Mr. B.P. Munshi, learned advocate for the petitioner requests to grant three months time to deposit the remaining amount of stamp duty. A request is hereby accepted and time to deposit the remaining amount of stamp duty is hereby extended for a period of three months from today.