Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 31 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Transcon Sheth Creators Private Limited & Anr.
  • Respondents: State of Maharashtra & Anr.
  • The petition challenged the order dated 15 September 2015 issued by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune, which revised the market value of a conveyance dated 9 May 2007 from the adjudicated Rs 12 crore to Rs 52.61 crore and demanded a deficit stamp duty of Rs 2,03,07,750.
  • The original deed conveyed 17 plots of land, some occupied by slum dwellers, with 45‑47 litigations pending at the time of conveyance. The Collector of Stamps had adjudicated the market value at Rs 12 crore and stamp duty of Rs 60 lakhs was paid; the endorsement was dated 27 July 2007.
  • Subsequent valuation reports (17 Jan 2009, 12 Sep 2013, 6 Dec 2014) progressively raised the value to about Rs 52.61 crore but each report contained qualifications regarding pending litigations, injunctions on Plot 10 (23,423 sq m), and development rights.
  • Petitioners, through Senior Advocate Mr. Girish S. Godble, argued that the revision violated Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act (six‑year limitation) and that valuation must be based on the property’s condition on 9 May 2007, not on speculative future redevelopment benefits (FSI, TDR, SRA).
  • Respondent No. 2, represented by AGP Mr. S. H. Kankal, contended that the notice issued on 12 March 2008 and the subsequent hearing complied with Section 53A, and that the valuation followed Rules 3 and 6 of the Maharashtra Stamp (Determination of True Market Value) Rules, 1995.
  • The Court noted that the limitation question was left open for a larger bench, focusing instead on the merits of the valuation.
  • The Court examined the deed, which expressly stated that the purchaser accepted the property “as‑is‑where‑is” with full knowledge of existing litigations, encumbrances, and an injunction affecting 28,000 sq yds. The deed also recorded a Special General Meeting resolution dated 15 July 2006 accepting the Rs 12 crore offer.
  • The Court emphasized that valuation must consider both “plus” and “minus” factors (Vimal Agarwal) and that future benefits cannot be treated as present assets for stamp duty purposes (Supreme Court precedents State of U.P. v. Ambrish Tandon and State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers).
  • The Court found that the 6 December 2014 valuation report did not demonstrate how deductions for pending litigations, encumbrances, injunctions, and development costs were applied, nor did it explain why earlier qualifications were ignored.
  • The Court held that the authority’s reliance on the phrase “report is proper and hence accepts the same” was insufficient without reasoned analysis of objections.
  • Consequently, the Court concluded that the revised market value of Rs 52,61,54,916 could not be accepted as the true market value on the relevant date.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is allowed.
  • The impugned order dated 15 September 2015 is quashed and set aside.
  • The original adjudicated market value of Rs 12 crore and stamp duty of Rs 60 lakhs stand restored.- The demand for deficit stamp duty of Rs 2,03,07,750 is dismissed.
  • The petitioners may withdraw the amount deposited in the Court on 27 October 2015, with any accrued interest, upon verification.
  • The limitation issue under Section 53A remains open and is not decided.
  • No order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications are deemed infructuous.

Topics: Stamp Duty Valuation, Property Litigation