Patel Builders and Developers Thr Its Partners Bilal Rauf Patel and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Aug 2024WP/12061/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order holding deficiency of stamp duty on a Development Agreement based on a presumption of FSI 4. The court found an arguable case and stayed the impugned order till the next hearing.

What did the court decide?

Stay to the impugned stamp deficiency order dated 01/08/2024 till next date of hearing; notice issued to respondents.

Patel Builders and Developers Thr Its Partners Bilal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

21-WP-12061-2024 .doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.12061 OF 2024

¶5

Patel Builders And Developers Through …. Petitioners Its Partners Bilal Rauf Patel And Ors.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its …. Respondents Secretary And Ors.

¶8

Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil i/b Mr. Sachin Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State.

¶10

Digitally signed SHANTANUSHANKARSADHUDUM by SHANTANUSHANKARSADHUDUMDate:2024.08.29 15:26:07 +0530

¶11

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

¶12

DATE : 28^th AUGUST, 2024.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Chief

¶16

Controller of Revenue Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 has passed the impugned order dated 01/08/2024 whereby, it is held that there is deficiency of stamping

¶17

to the Development Agreement registered on 25^th April, 2022 to the

¶18

Shantanu Dhudum 1/3

¶19

21-WP-12061-2024 .doc

¶20

extent of Rs.1,26,55,225/-. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the order passed by the Collector dated 19/04/2022 and final order dated 20^th April, 2022 whereby, the area of construction was observed to be 5010 sq.m. and Stamp Duty applicable for the Development Agreement was decided at Rs.25,73,700/-. It is his submission that the Assistant Director of Urban Development has also held conclusively that as far as the land in question there can be maximum construction to the extent of 4386.59 sq.m. It is his further submission that there is Railway Line abutting to the said land and in fact the portion of this land has been acquired for laying down the Railway Track. It is his submission that there cannot be a construction done beyond NOC issued by Konkan Railway. According to him without considering all these objections raised to the notice dated 29^th December, 2022, the authority has passed order holding that there is a deficiency stamp Rs.1,26,55,225/-.

¶21

Prima facie, perusal of the record indicates that the said order has been passed on the basis of presumption that for the land in question the F.S.I. available is 4 and not 1. Atleast, at this stage, this Court finds the documentary evidence on record to indicate that

¶22

Shantanu Dhudum 2/3

¶23

21-WP-12061-2024 .doc

¶24

the no such F.S.I. was either availed or exhausted by the Petitioners.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions, makes statement that the alleged Additional F.S.I. 3 was never consumed and that the Petitioners have no intention to consume the same at anytime in future.

¶26

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and considering the order impugned wherein these objections have not been considered by authority, arguable case has been made out by the Petitioners. Hence, there would be stay to the impugned order till next date of hearing.

¶27

Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 10^th October, 2024.

¶28

Learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State.

¶29

Affidavit-in-reply, if any, be filed before the next date.

¶30

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶31

Shantanu Dhudum 3/3

Patel Builders and Developers Thr Its Partners Bilal Rauf Patel and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patel Builders and Developers Thr Its Partners Bilal Rauf Patel and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr. Jagannath Anna Gavade and Ors. Vs Shri. Shashikant Bhupal Khandekar and Ors.

Bayer Crop Science Ltd. vs Suresh Prasad

Sailee Developers through Its Partner Mangesh Tukaram Sawant vs Varsharaj Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

Kamlesh K Singh vs Rite Nutan Homes Private Ltd.

Tata Motors Finance Limited vs Morya Trans Facility Pvt. Ltd.

Kalyani Aditya Mineral Limited through Its Director Mr. Saurabh Mittal vs Aditya Birla Global Trading India Private Limited