2026:BHC-AS:4235 Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12021 OF 2025 Shweta Aditya Malhotra ...Petitioner Versus The Collector of Stamps, Andheri Division …Respondent Mr. Saurish Shetye, a/w Pavan Pandey and Devendra Agarwal, i/b Prem Kumar Pandey, for the Petitioner.

SANTOSH Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP for the State.

SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Reserved On: 3^rd DECEMBER, 2025 Date: 2026.01.28 20:35:47 +0530 Pronounced On: 28^th JANUARY, 2026 JUDGMENT:-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to an order dated 29^th May, 2025 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Andheri Division, Mumbai, whereby the Collector has determined the duty on the sale certificate at the market value of the subject property (Rs.8,34,91,500/-) instead of the consideration paid at the auction sale (Rs.2,01,31,000/-).

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under:

3.1 The property bearing Survey No.C/1112 admeasuring 142.97 sq. mtrs., with a building standing thereon, situated at H-Ward No.1976(2), street No.40A, Sherly Rajan Road, Bandra West, Mumbai, was the secured asset. In Original Application No.42/2001, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Mumbai, (‘the DRT-1’) had drawn up a recovery certificate in favour of Central Bank of India, the certificate holder, towards recovery of the certificated amount alongwith further interest and charges, thereunder. The Recovery Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai, had ordered the sale of the subject property. A sale proclamation was issued on 30^th September, 2021. The petitioner was the successful purchaser in the auction held on 29^th October, 2021. Accordingly, a sale certi evidencing the purchase of the subject property by the petitioner for the consideration of Rs.2,01,31,000/- was issued by the Recovery Officer, on 24th December, 2021.

3.2 After rectification of the sale certificate, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector of Stamps – the respondent, for adjudication of the stamp-duty on the corrected sale certificate. The petitioner claimed that, the stamp-duty be calculated on the consideration of Rs.2,01,31,000/- as paid under the court monitored auction process. Eventually, by an interim order dated 5^th March, 2025, the respondent determined the stamp-duty on the value of Rs.8,34,91,500/- on the basis of an independent market valuation. The petitioner filed objections to the said interim determination of the duty. Ultimately, after hearing the petitioner, the respondent passed an order dated 29^th May, 2025 under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Stamps Act, 1958 (“the Stamp Act, 1958”) adjudicating the stamp-duty on the sale certificate on the basis of the market value of the subject property i.e. Rs.8,34,91,500/-. Thus, the stamp-duty under Section 25(b) was determined at Rs.50,09,490/- and the penalty under Section 34(a)(ii) at Rs.12,02,278/-.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction. The determination of the stamp-duty on the basis of the market value in the face of the sale of the subject property in an e-auction is stated to be illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the settled legal principle that, in such cases, the stamp-duty is to be paid on the value of the property as discovered in the auction sale. The petitioner asserts, the sale price fetched in a transparent auction process represents the market value for the determination of the stamp-duty.

5. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent. At the outset, the tenability of the petition is assailed on the ground of availability of an alternate efficacious statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 32B and Section 53(1A) of the Stamp Act, 1958.

6. On the merits of the ma