Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: October 5, 2026 (reserved September 28, 2026)

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Atul Enterprises (partnership) and Montal Investment (partnership), each represented by partner Atul N. Patel, filed Writ Petitions Nos. 9358, 9359, 9360 and 9361 of 2016 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of the order dated March 3, 2016 issued by the Deputy Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra.
  • Respondents: State of Maharashtra (through the Collector of Stamps, Borivali) and the Deputy Collector of Stamps.
  • Background: The petitioners own land in Laxmi Industrial Estate, Goregaon (Plot D‑40, D‑34, D‑37‑46, D‑36, D‑42) originally acquired through Development‑cum‑Sale Agreements dated December 9, 1985 (and one Agreement for Sale dated March 28, 1996). Consideration paid was Rs 5,01,620 (aggregate) and Rs 35 lakhs for the 1996 plot. Stamp duty paid at that time was Rs 40,000.
  • In 2012 the petitioners executed four registered conveyances (Document Nos. 5379, 5377, 5380, 5378 dated July 10, 2012) to perfect title as required by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The Collector of Stamps assessed stamp duty on the basis of the 2012 market value, determining a deficit of Rs 2,00,63,825 and levying a balance duty of Rs 1,43,71,275.
  • The petitioners filed appeals, deposited Rs 1.5 crore, and sought clarification of boundaries, CRZ‑I/II, mangrove, RG and road reservations. The Collector’s order of October 9, 2014 fixed stamp duty at Rs 1,44,11,275 (after credit for Rs 40,000 already paid).
  • The Deputy Collector’s impugned order of March 3, 2016 upheld the Collector’s assessment and directed payment of the balance duty.
  • Petitioners argued that the 2012 conveyances were merely the concluding instruments of the 1985/1996 transactions; therefore Section 4 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act (which provides that when several instruments are used for a single transaction, only the principal instrument attracts full duty and the others attract a nominal duty) should apply, not a fresh valuation based on 2012 market rates.
  • They also contended that the Collector’s reliance on the Ready‑Reckoner rates without proper adjustment for CRZ‑I, CRZ‑II, mangrove and other reservations violated the requirement to determine the true market value under the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995.
  • Respondents relied on Section 28 of the Act and the judgment in Praman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to argue that material facts affecting market value must be expressly recited in the main deed or an unambiguously incorporated annexure, which they claimed was absent.
  • The Court examined the chain of documents (development agreements, powers of attorney, possession records, receipts and the 2012 conveyances) and held that the later conveyances were executed to complete the earlier agreements, satisfying the test of “several instruments employed for completing a single transaction” under Section 4.
  • The Court noted that while the absence of an explicit recital in the conveyance is not ideal, the totality of evidence demonstrates continuity of parties, property and rights, precluding the view that a fresh sale occurred in 2012.
  • The Court also affirmed that the Ready‑Reckoner rates are only prima‑facie indicators and cannot alone determine market value when substantial restrictions (CRZ, mangroves, RG, slum occupation) exist, but found that once Section 4 is applied, the precise 2012 valuation becomes irrelevant.
  • Allegations of forged rent receipts were acknowledged but held not to affect the statutory liability under Section 4.

Final Outcome

  • The Court allowed all four writ petitions.
  • The impugned orders dated March 3, 2016 (Appellate Authority) and October 9, 2014 (Collector of Stamps) were quashed and set aside.
  • The consequential demand for deficit stamp duty, penalty, interest and recovery proceedings were also quashed.
  • The rule was made absolute; no order as to costs was made.

Topics: Stamp Duty, Section 4 Maharashtra Stamp Act