ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court seeking a declaration that exercise of power under Section 53A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) by the 1st respondent and passing of order dated 29-05-2015 to be illegal and non est.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The 1st petitioner/Berggruen Properties Private Limited (‘the Company’ for short), is a private limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the 2nd petitioner is the office bearer of the said Company. The Company agrees to purchase certain lands situated in Beechankuppe Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District (‘the property’ for short) from several vendors during the year 2008-2009 and is said to have paid necessary stamp duty for execution of agreements of sale. The 2nd petitioner is a confirming party to the said agreements of sale. The sale agreements were entered in to on two dates i.e., on 11-04- 2008 about three sale agreements and on 12-08-2009 about two sale agreements. The Company agreed to purchase converted lands mentioned in the schedules of those sale agreements and consideration that was agreed in the agreements of sale was `45/- lakhs per acre subject to physical measurement of lands. The sale consideration was thus dependent upon actual physical measurement of lands after conversion, if any, and the value depicted in the sale agreements.

3. The vendors then after the agreements of sale being entered into executed General Power of Attorney on 11-04-2008 in favour of one one Arif Khan authorizing him to apply for conversion and also sell the land after conversion. On 12-08-2009 the vendors also executed General Power of Attorney in favour one R. Ramaseshan and P.Gopala Krishnan for similar purpose. The consideration amount that was found in the sale agreements did not bear a mention in the General Power of Attorneys. It appears that an audit objection comes about in the form of a report that revenue receipt accounts relating to stamps and registration fees have not been deliberately shown in the General Power of Attorney documents which has resulted in under-valuation of the property and resultantly there is short levy of stamp duty of `3,31,16,000/- and registration fee of `46,56,000/-. Based upon the said audit report, the 2nd respondent issues a notice invoking power under Section 46A of the Act, calling upon the petitioners herein to appear before him. The petitioners/respondents therein appeared and filed their statement of objections. An order is passed on 15-07-2013 by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and Registration considering the objections filed by the respondents therein/the petitioners herein dropping entire proceedings. It was clearly held that there was no deficit stamp duty or short levy. 4. When things stood thus, a communication comes from the Principal Accountant General of Karnataka to the 1st respondent/Inspector General of Stamps and Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority regarding outstanding amount in local audit report being shown as settled. The reason for the said communication was a notice issued by the 1st respondent under Section 53A of the Act invoking his suo motu power of revision of the order under Section 46A of the Act passed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners then file their objections to the notice so issued on 03-12-2013 and on completion of pleadings before the 1st respondent, the impugned order comes about on 29-05-2015. The order that is passed under Section 53A of the Act imposes payment of huge stamp duty. It is the order dated 29-05-2015 that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. This Court, on entertaining the petition, in terms of its order dated 23-06-2015, had granted an interim order of stay of the impugned action of the 1st respondent. The said interim order is in operation even to this day.

5. Heard Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appear