Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Justice Amit Borkar

Order Date: 5 October 2026 (pronounced)

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Atul Enterprises (partner Atul N. Patel) and Montal Investment (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 3 March 2016 passed by the Deputy Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra.
  • Respondents: State of Maharashtra (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 9 December 1985 (and one Agreement for Sale dated 28 March 1996). Consideration paid then was Rs 5,01,620/‑ (aggregate) with stamp duty of Rs 40,000/‑.
  • In 2012 the petitioners executed four registered conveyances (Document Nos. 5379, 5377, 5380, 5378) 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 (e.g., Rs 56.20 crore for Plot D‑40) and levied a deficit of Rs 2.00 crore, issuing a Show‑Cause Notice on 4 September 2013.
  • The petitioners argued that the 2012 conveyances were merely the concluding instruments of the 1985/1996 transactions, invoking Section 4 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, which provides that when several instruments are used to complete a single transaction, only the principal instrument is chargeable at the full rate and the ancillary instruments attract a nominal duty.
  • They also contended that the Collector’s reliance on Ready‑Reckoner rates without proper adjustment for CRZ‑I, CRZ‑II, mangrove, RG and road reservations violated the requirement to determine the true market value under the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995.
  • The State relied on Section 28 and the judgment in Praman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to argue that the lack of explicit annexure references meant the restrictions could not be considered, and that the 2012 conveyances represented fresh sales requiring valuation at 2012 market rates.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the earlier Development‑cum‑Sale Agreements and the 2012 conveyances together constitute several instruments employed to complete a single transaction. Accordingly, Section 4 applies, and the conveyances cannot be treated as independent fresh sales.
  • The Court emphasized that the substance of the documents, possession, payment of consideration, powers of attorney and continuity of parties demonstrate a single transaction, despite the different nomenclature of the instruments.
  • The Court rejected the Collector’s mechanical application of Ready‑Reckoner percentages and noted that while the Ready‑Reckoner is a guideline, the statutory duty to ascertain true market value requires consideration of all restrictions, but this issue became moot once Section 4 was applied.
  • The impugned orders dated 3 March 2016 and the earlier Collector’s order dated 9 October 2014 were quashed and set aside.
  • The consequential deficit stamp‑duty demand of approximately Rs 2.00 crore, the penalty, interest and recovery proceedings were also quashed.
  • The writ petitions were allowed on their merits; no costs were awarded.

Topics: Stamp Duty, Section 4 Maharashtra Stamp Act