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

Order Date: 28 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/S VTP Homee Landmark LLP (represented by Ms. Manjiri Parasnis). Respondents – State of Maharashtra (through Ministry of Revenue) represented by Ms. Mamta S. Srivastava, AGP.
  • Nature of dispute: Determination of stamp duty payable on a Development Agreement dated 2 November 2012 concerning two parcels of land in Village Kharadi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune (Survey No. 10/3A – 8,950 sq m; Survey No. 26/2/1+2/3 – 371.74 sq m).
  • Background: The parties executed an Articles of Agreement in 2012 and a Supplementary Agreement in 2017, agreeing to share gross sale proceeds (45% residential, 55% residential for the developer; 50% each for commercial). The petitioner paid Rs 33,73,000 stamp duty based on a Ready‑Reckoner valuation of approximately Rs 6.74 crore.
  • Stamp duty assessments:
  • Respondent No. 1 (4 Nov 2015) valued the property at Rs 15,51,41,600 using Clause 5(g‑a) of Schedule I, applied 5 % rate → stamp duty Rs 77,57,100, resulting in a deficit of Rs 43,84,100 after credit for the amount already paid.
  • The petitioner challenged the application of Article 5(g‑a)(i), arguing that only the land value should be considered and that revenue‑sharing is a future, hypothetical consideration.
  • Petitioner’s arguments: Mis‑application of valuation slabs, reliance on Ready‑Reckoner rates, claim that the instrument is not a “Joint Venture” under the 2015 amendment, and that the CAG cannot review stamp‑duty calculations.
  • Respondent’s arguments: The Development Agreement gives the developer authority to construct and sell, making it fall within Article 5(g‑a)(i); revenue‑sharing constitutes consideration; the deferment factor of 0.85 was correctly applied; and the valuation methodology aligns with the precedent set in Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. v. Chief Controller (Revenue Authority) (11 Nov 2024).
  • Court’s analysis:
  • Determined that the instrument is indeed an agreement giving authority to a promoter/developer, satisfying the criteria of Article 5(g‑a)(i).
  • Recognised revenue‑sharing as valid consideration under Section 2(na) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act.
  • Applied the Kolte Patil principle that consideration can be computed on the date of execution by factoring in development potential, FSI, ASR, and applicable rates, without needing the actual future sale price.
  • Found the valuation of Rs 15,51,41,600 to have a transparent basis (land area, rates for residential/commercial, and agreed percentages).
  • Rejected the petitioner’s contentions regarding hypothetical valuation, land‑lock status, and CAG jurisdiction.

Final Outcome

  • The Writ Petition is dismissed.
  • The orders dated 4 Nov 2015 (Respondent No. 1) and 26 Aug 2019 (Respondent No. 2) are upheld.
  • The petitioner must pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs 43,84,100 together with any statutory penalty under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.
  • No costs awarded; interim relief, if any, is vacated.

Topics: Stamp Duty, Real Estate Valuation