A recital affecting market value must be expressly mentioned in the instrument itself or clearly referenced in an annexure to be considered for stamp duty assessment. Leasehold expiry does not automatically reduce stamp duty liability unless the instrument explicitly states the transfer of reversionary rights instead of leasehold rights. The presence of statutory tenants impacts market value, but the petitioner failed to document the correct tenant-occupied area, leading to higher assessment.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the additional stamp duty and penalty. The annexure containing CRZ details was not explicitly referenced in the principal deed, rendering it insufficient for valuation adjustment. The expired leasehold rights were not properly incorporated into the conveyance deed, failing to establish grounds for duty reduction. The tenant-occupied area discrepancy was not adequately substantiated by the petitioner.

Writ Petition Dismissed. No Costs. Ad-interim relief for stay on revenue collection was refused.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction exercised to review impugned order.
• Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – Sections 3, 17, 19, 31, 33, 34, 41, 53A – Stamp duty computation, market valuation, and adjudication of instrument recitals.

Subjects:

Stamp Duty Deficit – Coastal Regulation Zone – Leasehold Rights – Market Value Determination – Tenant-Occupied Property – Conveyance Deed – Valuation Discrepancy

Nature of Litigation:

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order confirming stamp duty deficit and penalty imposed under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.

Petitioner's Relief Sought:

Quashing of the order dated 1 April 2017 in Revision Case No.72 of 2014, which demanded ₹52,44,075/- as deficit stamp duty and ₹4,19,523/- as a penalty, on the ground that CRZ restrictions, expired leasehold rights, and tenant-occupied property were not adequately considered in valuation.

Reason for Filing the Case:

The petitioner claimed that the conveyance deed explicitly annexed a document indicating CRZ restrictions and the expired leasehold status, affecting the market valuation for stamp duty assessment.

Prior Decisions:

• The Collector of Stamps initially impounded the deed and demanded additional stamp duty.
• The Revisional Authority (Respondent No.2) upheld the demand for additional stamp duty and penalty, rejecting the petitioner’s argument regarding CRZ restrictions and leasehold limitations.

Issues:

1. Whether an annexure indicating CRZ restrictions forms an integral part of the conveyance deed for market valuation.
2. Whether expired leasehold rights should be considered in determining stamp duty liability.
3. Whether tenant-occupied land should have been assessed at a reduced market value for stamp duty purposes.

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioner’s Contentions:

a) CRZ restrictions were annexed to the conveyance deed and should have been considered in market valuation.
b) Leasehold rights over 342 square meters had expired, making the valuation incorrect.
c) Tenant-occupied property was assessed on incorrect area figures, inflating the market value.

Respondents’ Contentions:

a) Under Himalaya House Co. Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, (1972) SCC (1) 726, all facts affecting stamp duty liability must be explicitly stated in the main instrument.
b) CRZ restrictions were not expressly referenced in the principal deed, so they could not be considered.
c) The petitioner failed to clearly specify the tenant-occupied area, justifying the higher assessment.