Compromise decree creating new right in immovable property for consideration, rather than declaring pre-existing right, requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1) Registration Act and attracts stamp duty, not exempt under Section 17(2)(vi).

JUDGMENT :

Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to assail the communication/order dated 06.05.2025 issued by Respondent No.4, the Joint District Registrar (Class I) and Collector Stamps, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to pay stamp duty quantified at Rs. 5,700/- and a further amount described as penalty/fine of Rs. 22,800/-, aggregating to Rs. 28,500/-, as a condition precedent for registration of the document described by the petitioner as a “compromise decree”.

2. The material facts, as emerge from the pleadings and documents placed on record, are that the petitioner had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 2004 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant therein, who is the petitioner’s father, restraining him from alienating, transferring or creating third party interest in agricultural land bearing Gut No.2 (popularly described as “Mali”), situated at village Jawarpur, Taluka and District Aurangabad, admeasuring 85 R. During pendency of the suit the parties tendered a compromise pursis. The compromise terms, in substance, record that the defendant would “surrender”/give to the petitioner a portion of land admeasuring 85 R along with trees, and that the petitioner would pay consideration of Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant. It is the petitioner’s case that the consideration was paid and that, on the basis of the compromise, a decree came to be drawn on 14.07.2004.

3. After the decree, the petitioner approached the revenue authorities for mutation and entry of his name in the revenue record in respect of the 85 R portion claimed by him. The record indicates that though directions were issued by the Tahsildar on 06.02.2023, to the Talathi to take steps to enter the petitioner’s name in terms of the compromise decree, and although a spot panchnama was prepared, mutation was not effected. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation dated 30.10.2023. The Talathi, upon that representation, required the petitioner to have the compromise decree registered through the office of Respondent No. 4 (Stamp/Registration). The petitioner therefore applied on 12.12.2024 for registration of the compromise decree. Respondent No.4, by the impugned communication dated 06.05.2025, directed payment of stamp duty and penalty/fine, treating the document as chargeable under the relevant conveyance entry. This has led to the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the document in question is a compromise decree passed by a competent civil court and that Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short “the Act”) provides for compulsory registration but Section 17(2) of the Act carves out exceptions; and that a compromise decree, particularly where it recognizes/records the arrangement between parties, falls within the protective ambit of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act and, therefore, does not require registration, and consequently cannot be subjected to stamp duty and penalty as demanded. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., Civil Appeal No.14808 of 2024 (decided on 20 December 2024), to contend that a consent decree does not operate as a conveyance where it merely recognizes a pre-existing right and creates no new right, and that, in such