ORDER

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.19/2022 is directed against the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Shivamogga, whereby the trial Court directed the petitioner – plaintiff to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty in a total sum of Rs.40,90,900/- towards Sale Agreement dated 31.07.2020 said to have been entered into between the respondents and petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and during the course of evidence, he sought to mark the aforesaid Sale Agreement as an exhibit. At that stage, the respondents opposed marking of the said document in evidence interalia contending that the same was insufficiently stamped and deficit duty and penalty had to be paid by the petitioner – plaintiff. Pursuant thereto, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order upholding the contention of the respondents and directed the petitioner – plaintiff to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that at Para No.13 of the plaint, the petitioner has specifically stated that apart from the fact that he had been always ready and willing to perform his part of the Sale Agreement and has paid full sale consideration, the petitioner – plaintiff was fully exempted from payment of stamp duty and registration charges in terms of the State Government Notification dated 10.02.2016, which was also referred to and reflected in the aforesaid Sale Agreement. So also, a perusal of the aforesaid Notification coupled with the Certificate issued by the Spl. LAO will indicate that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemption confirmed in the aforesaid State Government Notification dated 10.02.2016.

5. A perusal of the aforesaid Notification, which is issued by the State Government and the Certificate dated 12.03.2016 issued in favour of the petitioner will clearly indicate that the authorities have recognised, affirmed and confirmed that the petitioner was entitled to exemption from payment of stamp duty, registration charges etc., in relation to the property to be purchased by him pursuant to receiving compensation awarded towards acquisition of his land. In fact, in the impugned order, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the said exemption; however, the trial Court has come to the erroneous conclusion that the Certificate ought to have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner and not by the Spl. LAO without appreciating that the Notification empowers both the Spl. LAO as well as the Deputy Commissioner to issue Notification, which aspect has not been considered by the trial Court while passing the impugned order there by resulting in erroneous conclusion.

6. Insofar as the contention urged by the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to purchase many properties and that he had already used the compensation amount for acquiring the other properties is concerned, it is relevant to state that in the Sale Agreement dated 31.07.2020 itself, respondents and petitioner have mutually agreed that the sale consideration was flowing out of the compensation amount awarded in favour of the petitioner and since the respondents were parties to the said Sale Agreement containing the said recitals, the respondents would not be entitled to aprobate and reprobate and contend that the petitioner was liable to pay stamp duty on the document and that he was not entitled to any exemption. Under these circumstances, even this contention urged by the respondents cannot be accepted.

7. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 11.10.2022 passed in O.S.No.19/2022 by the