JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---This batch of three writ petitions was heard together and is being disposed of by this common judgment as the issue involved is identical arising out of similar facts.

2. In Writ Petition No. 669(1995) it is the petitioners case that they agreed to purchase from respondent No. 4 viz. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. the premises situated in the building known as "Bakhtavar" on plot No. 229, Block No. III, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Bombay on or about 17-1-1994. The facts relating to the title of respondent No. 4 in respect of the said property have been set out in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. As per the said facts, the respondent No. 1 viz. State of Maharashtra by their letter dated 17-5-1971 invited offers to lease land bearing plot No. 225 (later renumbered as Plot No. 229) of Block III of Backbay Reclamation Scheme inter alia from Bakhtawar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. the builders. The builders made an offer on 22-5-1971 to take the said plot, on lease upon the terms and conditions set out in a memorandum marked Exhibit "B". The builders were put in possession and as per the offer made by the builders which was accepted by respondent No. 1, 11 plots were agreed to be leased to different parties vide Resolution dated 1-3-1972 (Exh. C). The builders constructed the building known as "Bakhtawar" on the said plot and entered into several agreements for sale of premises therein on ownership basis. By virtue of an agreement dated 31-3-1974, respondent No. 4 Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. acquired the said premises on ownership basis from the builders. Subsequently, the holders of the several premises including the respondent No. 4 in the building known as "Bakhtawar" registered themselves as a co-operative society-respondent No. 3 herein. It is petitioners case that till date no lease has been executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 3 co-operative society. As already indicated above, by an agreement dated 17-1-1994, the respondent No. 4 agreed to sell the said premises to petitioners for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 45 crores. It appears from the pleadings made in the writ petition that the entire purchase price was paid by the petitioners to respondent No. 4 after obtaining necessary approval from the Income-tax Authorities under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act and the petitioners and respondent No. 4 filed a transfer form duly executed by the petitioners and respondent No. 4 for transfer of the said premises in favour of the petitioners. The respondent No. 3 co-operative society duly transferred the Share Certificate No. 3 (for shares bearing distinctive Nos. 11 to 15) in favour of the petitioners. It is petitioners case that on the said agreement and the transfer form, no stamp duty was affixed as there was no conveyance relating to immovable property contemplated under Entry No. 25(b) of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. It appears that by the letter dated 21-3-1995 the respondent No. 2 viz. the Collector and Superintendent of Stamps, Bombay called upon the members of respondent No. 3 co-operative society including the petitioners to furnish to him certain data in the enclosed proforma. The requisite information was furnished by the petitioners to respondent No. 2 vide Exhibits "F" and "G" respectively. On 29-3-1995 the petitioners received demand notice calling upon them to pay the stamp duty of Rs. 4,99,99,980/- being shortfall after adjudicating Rs. 20/- as the agreement is on a stamp paper of Rs. 20/-. The petitioners were called upon to pay a penalty of Rs. 8,99,99,960/- which was imposed on the petitioners by the said demand notice dated 29-3-1995. Accordingly, the petitioners were directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 13,49,99,940/- within 7 days from receipt of notice failing which the petitioners were informed that the said amount would be recovered as the land revenue. The said demand notice dated 29-3-1995 is impugned in the present writ peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document