SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
M/s Birla Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
The state of madhya pradesh & ors. – respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9345 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 14468 of 2022)
Decided On : 23-07-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Karan Singh, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Sharma, Adv.
In mining leases, when stamp duty valuation depends on indeterminate figures at execution, fiscal statutes allow for estimating royalty. Where the contractual agreement explicitly mandates the payment of the higher of royalty or dead rent, that higher amount serves as the valid basis for determining stamp duty.
Headnote:(A) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 26 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 9A - Mining lease - Stamp duty determination - Dispute regarding basis of stamp duty valuation - Whether 'dead rent' or 'anticipated royalty' constitutes the determinant. (Para 2)
(B) Fiscal Statutes - Interpretation - Fiscal statutes are to be construed strictly and mandatorily - When the law is clear, the objective is to ensure state revenue is not deprived - Proviso to Section 26 of the Stamp Act specifically deals with mining leases to cater to indeterminate value at execution. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
(C) Mining Lease - Contractual Terms - Statutory forms for mining leases include clauses specifying that where the lessee becomes liable to pay royalty, they shall be liable to pay either such royalty or dead rent, whichever is higher - Parties bound by the agreement they have voluntarily entered into. (Paras 4, 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
A mining lease was granted for the extraction of minerals. A dispute arose between the lessor and the lessee regarding the appropriate basis for calculating the stamp duty on the lease deed. The authority demanded duty based on 'anticipated royalty', while the lessee contended it should be restricted to the fixed 'dead rent' prescribed under relevant mining laws.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that fiscal statutes regarding stamp duty do not preclude specific valid contract terms. Since the mining lease agreement explicitly incorporates a clause providing for the payment of the higher of the two amounts (royalty or dead rent), the state is entitled to levy stamp duty based on the higher valuation.
Issues: Whether the stamp duty on a mining lease is to be calculated solely on 'dead rent' or based on 'anticipated royalty', and whether the specific proviso in the fiscal legislation applies to mining leases where the value is indeterminate at the time of execution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where the value of the subject matter of an instrument is indeterminate at the time of execution, the fiscal statute allows for estimation. Furthermore, when a contract stipulates the payment of the higher of two metrics, such terms are binding for the calculation of fiscal obligations.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and dispute over stamp duty calculation basis. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contending interpretations of stamp act vis-a-vis mmdr act provisions. (Para 3) |
| 3. definitions of royalty and dead rent under mining law. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. interpretation of fiscal statutes and nature of mining revenue. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. determining stamp duty through anticipated royalty in mining leases. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. final order dismissing the appeal. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The appellant applied for a lease to mine limestone from the respondent State. The same was granted to them and accordingly an agreement was executed. The dispute between the parties arose regarding the rate at which the stamp duty for the agreement was to be calculated. Whether the determinant would be the “dead rent” on the lease or would it be the “anticipated royalty”, is the question in this appeal.
2.1 This question arises in connection with a lease for the mining of limestone for an area of 56.27 hectares at village Birhauli, Tehsil Raghuraj Nagar, District Satna, when the appellant, who had applied for a fresh lease and vide letter dated 2nd July 2004, was asked to pay a stamp duty of Rs. 4,32,00,000 by way of anticipated royalty, by the District Collector, Satna.2.2 Being aggrieved by the order of the aforesaid authority, challenged the appellant challenged this decision before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench at Jabalpur by way of Writ Petition No.2640 of 2004.
2.3 The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition relying on a judgment of a coordinate Bench of that Court holding:
“25. As far as declaration of the relevant provision of the rule to be ultra vires is concerned, it is a settled law that the same cannot be declared as ultra vires owing to personal inconveniences. Interpretation of the statute from the different parts of the Section or the Rule are required to be considered as it is the basic intention of the legislature which is required to be seen. It is required to be analyzed that whether a particular proviso appended to a particular Section is to be read in consonance with the main Section or independently. In the present case, Section 26 of the Act of 1899 deals with payment of stamp duties on the instrument and the proviso appended thereto it clearly speaks of the fact that the proviso is applicable in cases of mining lease, therefore, the proviso is only to be read with respect to the mining lease as an independent provision.
…
28. In such circumstances, it is apparently clear that the proviso to Section 26 of the Act of 1899 applicable to the mining lease is required to be read separately from the main Section which is dealing with imposition of stamp duty. As far as other documents are concerned, the explanation is also inserted by the Government in the year 2015 which makes it clear that the proviso is applicable in the cases of mining lease. On bare reading of the proviso, it is apparently clear that the stamp duty or the dead rent is to be charged on the basis of the amount of royalty to be paid.”
2.4 Dissatisfied and aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court.
3. Following submissions have been made by the parties:
3.1 The appellant inter-alia contends that Section 26 of The Indian Stamp Act 18991 [Stamp Act] has no application to the present case. Instead, Article 33(a) of Schedule 1A thereof is the only provision applicable to the present case. The circular dated 15th March 1993 issued by the Under Secretary, Mineral Resource Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh provided that the determination of stamp duty for fresh leases to be based on anticipated average royalty either as mentioned in the excavation figures of the application form or the mining plan, whichever is higher. The appellant’s challenge thereto i.e., the vires of this notification that was laid alongside the demand notice dated 2nd July 2004, has not been considered in the impugned judgment
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
