JUDGMENT - KAMDAR S.U., J.:---By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27-2-2004 passed by the District Collector, Kolhapur, inter alia, directing the petitioner to make good the deficiency of stamp duty by properly classifying the release deed under Article 25(b)(5) of Schedule I to the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. Some of the material facts in the present case briefly stated are as under:-

2. Ms. Kantaben Harilal Poonatar was the original purchaser of the property bearing Plot No. 50, City Survey No. 517-A/1, E Ward, Shivaji Peth, Kolhapur and a bungalow built thereupon. The said property which was known as Poonam bungalow was acquired by the said deceased Kantaben Harilal Poonatar on 1-9-1965 under a registered sale deed. On 17-7-1985, the said deceased Kantaben Poonatar executed a Will conferring the right, title and interest in respect of the said property on the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. Smt. Kantaben Poonatar subsequently expired.

3. In accordance with the said that last deed and testament of Kantaben Poonatar dated 17-7-1985 the petitioners recorded their names in the record of rights including the property register card on 3-11-1985. Thus, the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 became the co-owner in respect of the said property under the said last will and testament of the deceased. Sometime in or about February, 2004 an arrangement was arrived at between the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner under which the respondent No. 3 agreed to release his right, title and interest in favour of the petitioner herein. Consequently a deed of release was executed sometime on or about 10-2-2004. The said deed of release was executed and appropriate stamp duty as computed under Article 52 of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act was paid. The said release deed was thereafter forwarded for registration to the 2nd respondent. The said Article 52 deals with the payment of stamp duty on the document described as release deed. The 2nd respondent however inter alia directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty at the rate of 8% on the market value of the property as in the year 2004. The aforesaid order is passed on the basis that though the document is styled as Release Deed but in fact the same is conveyance as it transfer the property in favour of another co-owner. Thus the authorities held that the said document is liable to payment of stamp duty under Article 25(B) and not Article 52 of Schedule I to the Bombay Stamp Act.

4. The petitioner thereafter made various representations to the 2nd respondent and pointed out that in the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6425 of 2000 this argument is rejected and further stated that the respondent No. 2 is not entitled to classify the said document as deed of conveyance. However, the said representation of the petitioner was not considered. On 10-2-2004, the petitioner made a written application requesting the respondent No. 1 to properly ascertain the stamp duty payable on the said release deed in light of the judgment of this Court. However, the respondent passed an order on 27-2-2004 inter alia directing the petitioner to make payment of stamp duty on the basis of sale deed under Article 25(b)(5) of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The respondents have further by the said order impounded the said release deed and have threatened to recover 2% of the market value of the property as and by way of penalty. In light of the aforesaid position, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out the necessary articles which are subject-matter of consideration in the present writ petition. Article 52 and Article 25(b)(5) of the said Schedule I reads as under:-

"25. CONVEYANCE (not being a transfer charged or exempted under Article 59)-

On the true market value of the property

which is the subject-matter for Conveyance-

(a) if relating to the movable property,

for every rupees 500

Click Here to Read the rest of this document