Redevelopment Rights Agreement stamped as conveyance eligible for stamp duty refund under Section 47(c)(5) on mutual cancellation without performance; authorities estopped from reclassifying for refund after initial valuation.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.MODAK, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri.Raut for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondents-State.

2. The issue involved in this petition is about entitlement of the petitioner to claim refund of a stamp duty paid on Redevelopment Rights Agreement dated 9^th December 2014. It was a ‘Registered Agreement’. The present petitioner is described as a Developer and one State Bank of India Staff Shiv-Sagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited was described as a Society. A stamp duty of Rs.69,82,000/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakh Eighty Two Thousand) was paid. This Agreement was cancelled mutually and a “Deed of Cancellation” was executed on 6^th December 2019 between the same parties.

3. On this background, the petitioner asked for refund of a stamp duty vide their Application dated 6^th December 2019 to the Collector of Stamps for the reason that the parties have not acted upon the “Redevelopment Agreement” and even the possession of the property was not handed over. The Collector of Stamps has forwarded this proposal to the respondent No.2 who as per his order dated 13^th December 2021 rejected the proposal citing the reason that “Redevelopment Rights Agreement” does not fall within the purview of “Agreement for Sale” and it was observed that it was the “Agreement for Redevelopment”. The provisions of Section 47 (c)(5) and provisions of Section 48 (1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (‘the said Act”, for short) are referred. This decision is challenged by way of this Writ petition. There is a prayer for refund of Rs.76,05,350/- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakh Five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty). The stamp duty paid on Original Agreement is Rs.69,82,000/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakh Eighty Two Thousand). The petitioner contends that the deficient stamp duty of Rs.6,23,350/- (Rupees Six Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Three Hundred Fifty) was paid on 6^th December 2019. (This is the date of execution of “Deed of Cancellation”). So also, there is reference in the impugned order that there is no evidence produced in the record.

4. Learned Advocate Shri.Raut has invited our attention to the contents of both the Agreements, that is to say, the “Redevelopment Rights Agreement” (hereinafter, will be described as “Original Agreement”) and the “Deed of Cancellation”. He also invited our attention to the provisions of Section 47 (c)(5) and provision of Section 48 (1) of the said Act. He relied upon observations made in following judgments:-

(i) Bano Saiyed Parwaz V/s. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps and Others. , (2025) 2 Supreme Court Cases 201

(ii) Sadoday Builders Private Ltd., and Another V/s. The Jt.Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Others. , Writ Petition No.4543 of 2010 : High Court of Bombay (Bench at Nagpur) : 23rd June 201

(iii) M/s.Satyam Construction V/s. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ors. , Writ Petition No.241 of 2015 : High Court of Bombay : 3rd September 2025

(iv) Nanji Dana Patel V/s. State of Maharashtra, Through Government Pleader and Others. , 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2817

5. Whereas, learned AGP supported the impugned order and relied upon the provisions of Article 25 of Schedule-I of the said Act (which lays down the stamp duty payable in a conveyance) and on the wordings of Article 5 (g-a) (which lays down stamp duty payable on a document conferring authority to a developer for the purpose of constructi