2024GeneralHigh CourtLatestLegalMarch 2024Real Estate

Stamp Duty – Property of Public Trust – Market value of property sold in auction – Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Stamp Rules 1995

Judgment dated 4.3.2024 in Writ Petition No.2540 of 2023 of Crystal Construction Company and another  Vs. State of Maharashtra and others

Stamp Duty –Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Stamp Rules 1995 – Whether the market value of the property as per Sale conducted by the Government / Local Authority / Undertaking – Whether it is true market value or it is to be calculated as per Ready Reckoner (ASR)

Land property at village Marol Mumbai owned by the public trust A.H.Wadia Trust was sold in auction.  The highest bid of Rs.1.60 crores was accepted.   An application under Section 36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act for approval of the Charity Commissioner was filed.  However, the Charity Commissioner had directed re-auction.   In the re-auction, the price was fixed at Rs.2.10 crores.   It was approved by the Charity Commissioner.

The Collector of Stamps had determined the market value of the property at Rs.30,55,88,000/- by the order dated 16.3.2017.   This was challenged in the High Court and the matter was remanded by the order dated 22.5.2020 holding that the Charity Commissioner is covered by the proviso to Rule 4(6) of the Maharashtra Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules 1995. 

The Collector of Stamps, by the order dated 16.9.2021, fixed the market value at Rs.41,69,02,000/- and stamp duty at Rs.1,97,95,100/-.

This order was challenged in the High Court.

HELD that Rule 4 of the Stamp Rules provides for Annual Statement of Rates of Immovable Property. However, the first proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 4  provides that if the property is sold or allotted by Government or local authority or undertaking, the value determined by the same shall be the true market value.   The Circular dated 13.10.2006 of the Inspector General of Registrar and Stamp Duty, Maharashtra state, Pune, provides that the auction conducted by the Charity Commissioner is covered by the first proviso to Rule 4(6) of the Stamp Rules.  However, the authority should first verify whether the Charity Commissioner had conducted auction by general notice and if it is found that the sale transaction is effected by other means than auction by the Charity Commissioner, the Collector of Stamps is empowered to inquire from the Charity Commissioner as to how price of the property is fixed at the time of sale.  In this case, the auction was conducted by the Trust and valuation report of the Valuer was accepted.   The re-auction was done amongst the bidders who had given their bids earlier. Thus, the Charity Commissioner himself did not issue the public notice.  In view of this, it was held that the sale price was not covered by the proviso to Rule 4(6) of the Stamp Rules and therefore, the order of the Collector of Stamps was upheld with modification of market value at rs.30,55,88,000/-.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I HAVE READ THE DISCLAIMER AND AGREE TO IT.

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the "AGREE" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about LegalDeli for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from LegalDeli or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledge site. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.

Disclaimer
About: This knowledge-site (www.LegalDeli.in) is owned and operated by LegalDeli (“NDA”), and is a resource for your informational and educational purposes only.

No Warranty: NDA does not warrant that any content or information contained on this knowledge-site is accurate, correct, complete or up-to-date, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any actual or threatened loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or otherwise. NDA assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the content and/or information contained on this knowledge-site, nor does it offer any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied in relation to such content or information.

Third-Party Links: NDA does not intend that links / URLs contained on this knowledge-site re-directing users to third party websites be considered as referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with any such third party website operators. NDA is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the content or information contained on such third party websites to which links may be provided on this knowledge-site.

No Legal Advice: By clicking ‘I agree’ and proceeding further, you acknowledge, represent and undertake that you on your own accord wish to know more about NDA, its capabilities and research content and information contained on the knowledge-site, for your own knowledge and personal use. The content and information contained on this knowledge-site should not be construed as nor relied upon as legal advice. You as a reader or recipient of content or information contained in this knowledge-site should not act, nor refrain from acting, based upon any or all of such content or information, but should always seek the advice of competent legal counsel licensed to practice the relevant law in the appropriate jurisdiction.

No Attorney-Client Relationship: This knowledge-site is not intended to be and you should not consider the content or information contained therein to be an advertisement, solicitation, inducement or invitation for an Attorney-Client relationship. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledge-site, including content and information contained therein, does not constitute nor create an Attorney-Client relationship between NDA and you.