1
W.P.No. 665 75/2009 (GM-ST/RN)
& MISC.W.Nos. 62450/2009
& 6245 I/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD __ 1' V
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANoAm?'.;'j*2,o'1T.o "
BEFORE9 » . _
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JLss'1'1cE'H.'G.RAME'--sVH _" "
w.1=-. No. 66575/2009"'{é£M»ST/RikfimAND
MISC.W.Nos. 512450/2o_o§_"&,'V52451 X2009
Between:
Thirupathi _ ,
S / o Bhimappéa haélagali
60 yrs, occ; agi'i_c1L1lvti;re
r/ o Sonna,VTq:{_B1}1gi " '
Dist: Bvagalkoi-_ -.;_
Rep by his
Pandurang ' V VA
S / o Thirupathi Hala._ga1i"--. "
29 yrs, oc'c:4_Agric1§1ltu17e " _
r/o Vidyagiri; ' _
Bagaglkot. A. V .. PETITIONER
(Byj "Sri. "rs"B:i% H«ebba21i, Adv}
.1
Th_e'Iz1spector General of Stamps
And. Commissioner of Stamps
A And" Chief Controller of Revenue
, A '*-'._8th Block, Jayanagar,
* . _:Banga1ore
i---I
2
W.P.No. 66575/2009 (GM-ST/RN)
& MiSC.W.Nos. 62450/2009
& 6245112009
2 The District Registrar
Bagalkot District
Bagaikot .. RESPONDEN'1'S
This WP is filed under Articles 226
Constitution of India, praying to quash the'~--in1p_1"1gned'"
order dated 12-11-2009 passed by _t.he__R--1 in
Q.
10 produced along with the writ petition' aszpeir A._r111eX_u're-_
Misc.W.No. 62450/2009'i.s filed-under =olr'd.;eru.1VVRra1el
10 of CPC r/ W Articles 226 of t1*'i--r.=:_ Cvonstitution of
India, praying to implead one Srirveeranna' Charantimath,
MLA, Bagalkot as responzdent;4'." * l
Misc.W.No. 62451'/'i2_oo9..i:} ,flile'd"l.1vnde1<_ Order 1 Rule
10 of CPC r/W Artic1esAi2_26-.V85'.227 ofgthelflionstitution of
India, praying to i__rnplead the Secre_tary;;«APMC, Bagalkot
as respondent'--3.j,-
This iii”? .’1’1::g,nd’*-.l.lMisc.W.wNo’s. 62450 /2009 and
62451:] 2009 “co.niirig on for preliminary hearing this day,
the Co’urt’«made ‘tlt1:’e..o4fol1oi’wi__rig:__-
TGRDER
ll heard the learned counsel for the
learned counsel appearing for the
-V ap;5ii:;ai~;ts in Misc.W.Nos.624SO/2009 and
lii}«62451/2009.
3
W.P.No. 66575/2009 (GM–S’F/RN)
& MiSC.W.Nos. 62450/2009
& 6245l:’2009
2. In this writ petition, the only question for
consideration is as to whether the stamp duty
the sale deed dated 11«11-2002, a copy of
produced as Annexure~D is in §tCCOrd?tfl’C€~,:\}’»Jifh. the, “‘
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (‘the
Admittedly, the sale deed’lV_wa.s rlocall
authority namely, the of the
petitioner. Leaarnedfif for the
petitioner, by’_A1*e_lyin,g””oi::,’¥ of ‘market
value’ as the Stamp Act
as it that if the
instmrnewnt or on behalf of a local
authority, m.arl{etlA”ya1ue of the property stated
bellthlelyvalue of consideration stated in
_t’he It is relevant to refer to the definition
of under Section 2(mm) of the Stamp
V”-Act which reads as under:
4
WPNO. 66575/2009 (GM~ST/RN)
& MISC.W.N0s. 62450/2009
& 62451/2009
“2(mm) —- ‘market value’ in relation to
any property, which is the subject
matter of an instrument, means
price which such property would'”‘have.___ ‘A »
fetched if sold in open market’..”onV-the-
date of execution of such ins.t**anie.nt’*~or’«.A
the consideration ~”‘stat.ed; ‘._the-C: in
instrument whichever is higher; ‘
Provided that notwithstanding anything
contained in thiS’i%:¢%”9r in the Az’ticle:.s, in
respect of an instrument executed by or
on behalfof orfin” ‘favour of the State
Go vernmen_t:T’o_r ‘t_hes.j_ Central ‘ Government
or a local authority or._iotner_’_.authority
constituted”‘by. or under anyvlaw for the
in for’ce~or’ af 1.-3o_df_y incorporate
éuzhoily owned or [controlled by the
Cefttral .Goffvern.ment: or the State
“Government_the._mar?ket value of the
“p_ropeftzj ‘shall _ he the value of
_ ‘conside_rgntieri;for’ such conveyance as
« set forth. in’ ins tru ment.
(underlining supplied)
An_readin’g”‘Vof the above definition would
e}eari_3fi’shoWe~,t.i1at if an instrument is executed on
behalf of j!=oca.1 authority, the consideration stated in
the instiument shalt be deemed to be the market
=v:a1–*J…e of the property. If this be the position of law, the
duty paid on the sale deed — AnneXure~»D is in
ti,
E
E
5
‘$2′ J
/’
I
5
W.P.No. 66575/2009 (GM-ST/RN)
& MiSC.W.Nos. 62450/2009
& 62451/2009
accordance with law. Accordingly, the ordernated
12–11~»2009 (Annexure–Q) passed by respond’en”t:No’;’I,V
— the Inspector General of Stamps
matter to respondent No.2 —- ,thefDis_tirict;Registrar
clearly illegal and hence is set zués_ide,i. Theivjwrit
is accordingly allowed. Nos;6:2’«i}5″VO and V
62451/2009 also stand dgspiogiegt
Petition allowed.’