JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. 1. The State, through its Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum- Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, has filed these Intra Court Appeals, aggrieved by the orders, dated 20.07.2016, and 01.02.2019, passed by two learned Single Judges of this Court, allowing Writ Petition No.211 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.36198 and 36199 of 2018 in W.P.No.31022 of 2018 respectively, filed by one Ms. Deepti Ahuja and M/s. Mahindra World City Developers Limited, separately. 2. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the said writ petitioner, who was the lessee of the property, developed by the Respondent-M/s. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., as a co-developer n a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), approved by the Board of Approval, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, in the land measuring 1550 Acres, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 3. The learned Single Judge held in favour of the writ petitioner in para 18 of the order impugned before us that since the property in question was situate in an SEZ, the registration of the Lease Deed in favour of the writ petitioner does not require any Stamp Duty, in view of proviso (3) to Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by Act No.28 of 2005 with effect from 23.06.2005. 4. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, provides that any instrument executed by, or, on behalf of, or in favour of, the Developer, or Unit, or in connection with the carrying out of purposes of the Special Economic Zones, will not attract any Stamp Duty. This amendment was carried out in consonance with the Special Law, enacted for development of Special Economic Zones under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, by its Third Schedule, effecting amendments in certain Central enactments, including the Indian Stamp Act, in Section 3. 5. The purpose of providing of exemption in Stamp Duty is to develop Special Economic Zones in the country. The Special Economic Zones are two types viz., (1) Processing Zones, which facilitate for activities relating to industry and commerce; and (2) Non-processing Zones, in which, facilities, such as Residential Houses can be developed by the developers or co-developers. The property in question is admittedly located within the Special Economic Zone. 6. Mr. The Special Economic Zones are two types viz., (1) Processing Zones, which facilitate for activities relating to industry and commerce; and (2) Non-processing Zones, in which, facilities, such as Residential Houses can be developed by the developers or co-developers. The property in question is admittedly located within the Special Economic Zone. 6. Mr. T.M. Pappaiah, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the Appellants-State, however, relied upon two documents, one is stated to be a 'Clarification' and the other a 'Circular', which are produced along with Office Memo, dated 02.07.2009, of which, the relevant portion of the Clarification is reproduced hereunder : ''(iii) Whether stamp duty would be payable in respect of sale or conveyance of the land developed by the Developer only to the units in the SEZ or to any other person or entity as well ? Clarification :- Land, buildings etc. falling outside the notified SEZ will not be eligible for exemption from stamp duty. Also, under the rules governing SEZ, sale of SEZ land to units or other persons or entities is not allowed. Similarly, conveyance of land, buildings, premises etc. by lease or otherwise (but not by sale) in an SEZ can be made only to the units in the SEZ Rules. In such cases above, the concession of stamp duty exemption will be allowed. Other persons or entities will not be eligible for concession.'' The learned Special Government Pleader also relied upon a part of the Guidelines issued for development of Special Economic Zones, which is also quoted below for ready reference : ''C. Housing : Five percent of the total area should be used for constructing low cost housing and dormitories in all SEZs of a size of 100 hectares or more. In case of a SEZ of a size of less than 100 hectares, developers should provide low cost housing/dormitories to the employees depending upon the need of the SEZ as per the National Urban Housing Policy, 2007. Developer should rent out these houses to the employees of units. The units could take these houses on long-term lease for renting out to their employees. The housing facilities created in the non-processing are could also be allowed to be used by persons who are working for establishment relating to SEZ developers, units and or are users of infrastructure facilities created in the SEZ. The units could take these houses on long-term lease for renting out to their employees. The housing facilities created in the non-processing are could also be allowed to be used by persons who are working for establishment relating to SEZ developers, units and or are users of infrastructure facilities created in the SEZ. In case a unit, having houses on long lease closes down, these can be transferred to other working units or the developer. Proper space for street vendors in the commercial areas shall be provided keeping in view the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009.'' He, therefore, submitted that the Lease Deed in question, executed in favour of the writ petitioner, namely, Ms. Deepti Ahuja, was not entitled for exemption from Stamp Duty. 7. Per contra, Mr. M. S. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioners, supported the impugned orders and urged that since the property in question is located admittedly within the Special Economic Zone and it is not the case of second or subsequent lease by the lessee in favour of a third party which might amount to a user of the property not for SEZ purposes and in which case such exemption from Stamp Duty could be lost but that not being the case, the State authorities cannot demand Stamp Duty on the Lease Deed in question, executed in favour of the said writ petitioner - Ms. Deepti Ahuja. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the clear opinion that there is no merit in the present Writ Appeals, filed by the State Government, and the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by us in these Intra Court Appeals. 9. The exemption provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is clear and in harmony with the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, which clearly stipulate and grant such exemption on the property developed by the developers or co-developers within the specified SEZs. 10. It is the geographical location of the property, which is relevant, and the instruments of having ownership rights or lease rights on such property are entitled for exemption from Stamp Duty in such cases. 10. It is the geographical location of the property, which is relevant, and the instruments of having ownership rights or lease rights on such property are entitled for exemption from Stamp Duty in such cases. The material sought to be relied upon by the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the Appellants-State viz., the alleged 'Clarification' or the 'Guidelines' for Development will, in no way, defeat the exemption from Stamp Duty in the present case. 11. Concedingly, the lessee has not utilised the property for any purposes, contrary to the purposes of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. It is not even the case of the Appellants-State before us or it was so before the learned Single Judge either. So long as the lease or any other conveyance attracting Stamp Duty is within the specified geographical limits of the Special Economic Zone, we fail to understand as to why Section 3 (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, will not stand attracted. The Stamp Duty is payable on the Conveyance Deed and not on the nature of User, to which the property is sought to be put. 12. In view of the admitted facts before us that the property in question is admittedly located within the Non-processing zone of the Special Economic Zone in question, the learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, was perfectly justified in upholding the exemption in favour of the writ petitioners. Therefore, we find no merit in these Appeals and they are liable to be dismissed. 13. Writ Appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.Nos.13166 and 13839 of 2019 are closed.