IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

rd

ON THE 23 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 5360 of 2025 M/S FILINT HOMES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. THR.

Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Naval Kumar Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri YPS Rathore-

Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER

1. The instant writ petition was initially filed as MP No. 1672 of 2017 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, vide order dated 07.02.2025 it was permitted to be converted into a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereafter the present writ petition has been registered as such.

2. The instant writ petition takes exception to the order dated

29.2.2016 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Distt. Gwalior in Case No. 10/B-105/12-13/47 (A) (1) whereby, on the reference made by the Sub- Registrar, Gwalior vide letter dated 24.1.2013 finding deficit stamp duty on the sale deed dated 14.5.2012, the adequate stamp duty after adjusting the duty already paid was ascertained at Rs. 93,10,500/- and by imposing the penalty of Rs. 10 lacs thereon, total amount to Rs. 1,03,10,500/- was levied.

The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was rejected vide order dated 13.9.2017.

3. During the course of arguments on 20.11.2025, one of the grounds raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was non service of notice and not-providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order dated 29.02.2016.

4. Since the aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner was not adverted to in the return filed by the State, therefore, this court vide ordered dated 20.11.2025 directed the counsel appearing for the State to produce the records of Case No. 10/B-105/12-13/47 (A) (1) from the office of Collector Stamps, Gwalior.

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, today the learned Govt.

Advocate has produced the record of the proceedings drawn by the Collector. By referring to the order sheet dated 23-01-2014, 18-03-2015, 4- 12-2015, and 19-2-2016, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the notices were duly directed to be issued to the petitioner. However, from the original records available with him, he is unable to point out any document evincing the service of the notices issued or any document to indicate as to whether, in compliance of the aforesaid orders, the notices were infact issued and served on the petitioner.

6. This court has also gone through the proceedings drawn by the Collector, Stamps in Case No. 10/B-105/12-13/47 (A) (1) from the original record produced by the State. Proceeding drawn indicates that after receipt of reference dated 24.01.2013 from Sub-registrar, a case under Section 47 (A)

(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'Stamp Act, 1899') was registered by the Collector on 28.01.2013 and notice was directed to be issued to petitioner vide order dated 23-1-2014, for hearing fixed on 30.01.2014. Thereafter, on 18-03-2015, again notice was directed to be issued for hearing on 6-4-2015. Subsequently, vide order dated 4.12.2015 again notice was directed to be issued fixing a returnable date as 06.01.2016. Thereafter, again on 19-2-2016, notice was directed to be issued fixing a returnable date on 7-3-2016. The record produced by the learned counsel appearing for the State does not indicate any document to evince the service of the aforesaid notices on the petitioner in compliance of any of the orders stated herein above. On 29-2-2016, by recording the absence of the petitioner, the matter was closed by the Collector, Stamps for passing the final order.

7. Section 47-A (2) of the Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in the State of MP, reads as under:-

"(2) On receipt of a reference under sub- section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of