Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 440
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Jitendra Manohardas Thakker & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2370 of 2024 With Writ Petition No. 12233 of 2023
Decided On : 16-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Revenue Law - Stamp Duty
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 - Mandatory registration introduced post-1990; irrelevant for determining principal instrument executed earlier. (Paras 4, 13)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners executed unregistered agreement for sale in 1990 with possession and consideration discharge; subdivided land approved; availed amnesty scheme in 2020 paying conveyance duty and penalty with certification; executed and registered sale deed in 2021 claiming Section 4 benefit; authorities assessed duty on 2020 market value ignoring prior stamping, confirmed in appeal.
Findings of Court:
Impugned adjudication and appellate orders quashed; sale deed to be franked with fixed duty under Section 4(1) instead of Schedule duty.
Issues: Whether subsequent sale deed reiterating prior stamped agreement with possession is principal instrument attracting full current market value duty or other instrument under Section 4; applicability of Article 25 provisos requiring registered prior agreement; relevant date for market value assessment.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 4(2) allows parties to elect principal instrument; amnesty-stamped agreement with possession qualifies as conveyance and principal; sale deed merely formalizes for registration, chargeable fixed duty; Section 4 ousts Schedule including Article 25; no manipulation alleged; supported by Supreme Court analysis on similar instruments and transaction completion. (Paras 12-25)
Result: Writ petition allowed.
For the Petitioners:Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Pradeep J. Thorat, Aditi S. Naikare and Aniesh S. Jadhav.
For the State : Mr. R.S. Pawar, AGP.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history of land transfers and 1990 agreement for sale with possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. sale deed formalizes stamped 1990 agreement as principal instrument under section 4. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. unregistered agreements ineligible for article 25 proviso benefits. (Para 7) |
| 4. section 4 governs multiple instruments; principal bears conveyance duty. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. agreement for sale with possession deemed principal conveyance under section 4. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. article 25 provisos do not override section 4 application. (Para 13 , 14 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. shyamsundar holds agreement with possession as principal instrument. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 24) |
| 8. market value assessed at 1990 transaction date. (Para 25) |
| 9. impugned orders quashed; sale deed stamped under section 4(1). (Para 26 , 27) |
| 10. connected petition to appropriate bench with reference to this judgment. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGEMENT :
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent parties taken up for final hearing.
Context and Factual Background:
2. This Petition is filed challenging orders of adjudication dated March 30, 2021 and August 27, 2021 by which a Sale Deed submitted by the Petitioners for adjudication before the authorities under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (“the Act”) has been assessed with a stamp duty of Rs. 58,19,380/-. The stamp duty has been declared as payable on the premise that it ought to be computed on the market value of ~Rs.14.54 crores, valued as of 2020.
3. A brief factual overview necessary for purposes of these proceedings is set out below :-
A] Plot of Lands bearing Survey No. 655/1/1/9/3 admeasuring 2700 sq.mt. and Survey No.655/1/1/9/4 were owned by one Khatib Family. In 1987, Plot bearing Survey No. 655/1/1/9/3 was jointly purchased from the Khatib Family by J. M. Thakker Developers Pvt. Ltd, Rajendra M. Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s M. R. Thakker & Company Construction Pvt. Ltd.; and Plot bearing Survey No. 655/1/1/9/3 was jointly purchased by M/s Shubhkama Builders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shubhashani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (collectively “Purchasers”) .
B] The Purchasers agreed to sell both plots of land to one M/s Thakkers Developers Ltd. (“Thakker Developers”) vide two separate agreements dated April 2, 1988 and April 22, 1988.
C] Thereafter, it was agreed that Thakkers Developers would sell portion of land admeasuring 2957 sq. mtrs. on the western side of Plot of land bearing Survey No. 655/1/1/9/3 along with Plot of land bearing Survey No. 655/1/1/9/4 (“Subject Land”) in favour of the Petitioners (collectively, “Thakkers”).
D] Consequently, the said Purchasers and Thakker Developers as confirming parties executed an Agreement for Sale dated July 25, 1990 in favour of the Thakkers (“Agreement for Sale”). The Agreement for Sale had been effected simply on a Rs.5/- stamp paper and it was not registered. The provisions of the Agreement for Sale entailed discharge of consideration of Rs.14,78,500, which is said to be the market value of Subject Land in the year 1990, and it also entailed handing over of possession concurrent with the execution.
E] The Thakkers submitted a Sub-division plan before the Assistant Director of Town Planning, which was approved, and consequently, vide order dated November 7, 2001, the Subject Land was numbered as Survey No. 655/1/1/5/6/9/3-4/Plot/A.
F] Under an amnesty scheme which was prevalent in 2020, the Thakkers sought adjudication of the Agreement for Sale and stamp duty in the sum of Rs. 1,17,640/- came to be assessed with attendant penalty of Rs. 4,70,560/-. These amounts appear to have been paid on July 22, 2020, and due certification endorsed on the instrument is found to have been dated July 24, 2020.
G] Pursuant to the amnesty scheme prevalent in 2020, the Thakkers intended to execute a sale deed and consequently, the Purchasers as Vendors and Thakker Developers as confirming party prepared a Sale Deed dated January 4, 2021 in respect
