Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenged an order dated 5 March 2015 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune, in Revision Case No. 5 of 2005, directing payment of Rs. 2,31,62,800 as deficit stamp duty. The first petitioner was a public limited company engaged in real estate development, previously a partnership firm converted under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956; the second petitioner was a former partner and later director. The dispute arose from a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 21 May 2004 conveying land admeasuring 37,954.20 square metres at Village Oshiwara, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban, on an 'as is where is basis'. The deed was submitted for adjudication under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, and stamp duty of Rs. 13,00,000 was determined as 10% of consideration and paid. The land was substantially covered by slums declared by notifications under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and affected by reservations. In 2005, a letter alleged undervaluation. A notice under Section 53A dated 6 June 2005 initiated proceedings under Section 52A. The petitioners appeared and submitted that slums and reservations affected market value and that there was no undervaluation. Thereafter, no communication was received for several years. In March 2013, the petitioners received an order dated 21 March 2013 demanding Rs. 3,10,32,950 as deficit stamp duty. The petitioners sought documents through RTI. They filed Writ Petition No. 11097 of 2013, and by order dated 18 December 2013, the High Court directed the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to decide the revision independently within four weeks, later extended to 30 April 2014. Site inspections and reports followed, with replies from petitioners. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority passed the impugned order on 5 March 2015 directing payment of Rs. 2,31,62,800 within thirty days. The petitioners contended that the order lacked reasons, was arbitrary, and that they were not given proper opportunity.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority's order dated 5 March 2015 demanding deficit stamp duty was valid, considering correct market value, delay in proceedings under Section 53A, denial of proper opportunity, and sufficiency of reasons.
Law Points
- Stamp duty payable on market value under Bombay Stamp Act
- adjudication under Section 31 and certificate under Section 32(1)
- proceedings under Section 53A must be completed without unreasonable delay
- natural justice requires proper opportunity and reasoned order
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (08) 117
Writ Petition No. 6437 of 2015
Mr. Durgaprasad Sabnis a/w Rajani Yadav i/b LEX FIRMUS, for Petitioners; Smt. A. A. Nadkarni, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
M/s. Sahyog Homes Ltd., Balkrishna Baban Jadhav
State of Maharashtra, Collector of Stamps (Enforcement-I), Superintendent of Stamps, Mumbai, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under the Bombay Stamp Act demanding deficit stamp duty.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the Order dated 5 March 2015 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in Revision Case No. 5 of 2005, which directed payment of Rs. 2,31,62,800 as deficit stamp duty.
Filing Reason
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority passed an order demanding deficit stamp duty based on alleged undervaluation of property in a Deed of Conveyance; petitioners alleged delay, lack of reasons, and denial of proper opportunity.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No. 11097 of 2013 was earlier filed; by order dated 18 December 2013, the High Court directed the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to decide the revision independently within four weeks, later extended to 30 April 2014. The impugned order dated 5 March 2015 was passed thereafter.
Issues
Whether the stamp duty on the Deed of Conveyance dated 21 May 2004 was correctly determined based on market value considering slums and reservations.
Whether the proceedings under Section 53A of the Bombay Stamp Act were vitiated by inordinate delay (notice in 2005, order in 2013).
Whether the Petitioners were given proper opportunity and whether the impugned order contained adequate reasons.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that the notice under Section 53A was issued on 6 June 2005 but the order was passed in 2013, causing an eight-year delay, which was unlawful.
Petitioners submitted that the land was covered by slums and affected by reservations, so there was no undervaluation and the consideration correctly represented market value.
Petitioners argued that their submissions were not properly recorded or considered, denying them a proper and effective opportunity to present their case.
Petitioners contended that the impugned order lacked proper, clear, or sufficient reasons and was arbitrary, unreasonable, and manifestly perverse.
Petitioners stated that they had no other effective remedy and hence approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227.
Judgment Excerpts
By filing the present Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the Order dated 5 March 2015 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune, in Revision Case No. 5 of 2005.
The main issue in the present Petition is regarding the correct amount of stamp duty payable on the said Deed of Conveyance.
The stamp duty payable was determined at Rs. 13,00,000/-, being 10% of the consideration mentioned in the Conveyance.
The proceedings could not have been kept pending for an unlimited period.
Procedural History
The partnership firm Sahyog Homes was converted into a public limited company under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956. A Deed of Conveyance dated 21 May 2004 conveyed land to the firm; stamp duty of Rs. 13,00,000 was adjudicated and paid. A Deed of Rectification dated 15 February 2006 corrected CTS numbers. On 24 January 2005, a letter alleged undervaluation. On 6 June 2005, notice under Section 53A of the Bombay Stamp Act was issued to Petitioner No. 2, and a hearing under Section 52A was held; petitioner submitted slum and reservation details. For several years no communication was received. In March 2013, the Petitioners received an order dated 21 March 2013 demanding Rs. 3,10,32,950 as deficit stamp duty. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 11097 of 2013; by order dated 18 December 2013, the High Court directed the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to decide the revision independently within four weeks, later extended to 30 April 2014. The Authority conducted site inspections and obtained reports from the Joint Director of Town Planning, to which petitioners filed replies. After hearing, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority passed the impugned order dated 5 March 2015 directing payment of Rs. 2,31,62,800 within thirty days. Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition No. 6437 of 2015 challenging the said order. The judgment text provided ends during arguments, and no final decision is available.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Stamp Act: Section 31, Section 32(1), Section 52A, Section 53A
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
- Companies Act, 1956: Part IX
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971: Not mentioned
- Right to Information Act, 2005: Not mentioned
