Chetan Dhanykumar Narwade vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Tahsildar Shirol — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Chetan Dhanykumar Narwade vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Tahsildar Shirol — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); Tahsildar Shirol directed to record necessary entries within the period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order; thereafter the writ petition was disposed off.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners could have their names mutated in the 7/12 extract on the basis of a compromise decree (Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 2022, Civil Court Kurundwad) for partition of agricultural lands, without producing a No Objection Certificate issued by the Collector of Stamps or paying stamp duty.

Court's answer

The controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 9th March, 2023 in The Barshi Bar Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Public Interest Litigation No.88 of 2021).

Ratio / Principle

Applying the decision in The Barshi Bar Association (wherein it was held, at paragraph Nos. 18 and 19, that a compromise decree effectuating partition of agricultural land neither requires compulsory registration in view of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act of 1908 nor attracts stamp duty on valuation of the property, being governed by the proviso to Section 46 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958), this Court had no hesitation in allowing the writ petition; the Tahsildar's insistence on a No Objection Certificate from the Collector of Stamps could not stand in the way of mutation.

Key takeaways

Consequential direction: necessary entries recording the Petitioners' names are to be made within two weeks from the date of communication of the order.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Circuit Bench), Writ Petition No. 10275 of 2024, Chetan Dhanykumar Narwade v. The State of Maharashtra, decided 21st August, 2025 (M.S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.; oral order per M.S. Karnik, J.). The Petitioners had applied to the Tahsildar, Shirol for mutation of their names in the 7/12 extract on the basis of a compromise decree in Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 2022 of the Civil Court, Kurundwad — a suit for partition of agricultural lands. By the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 the Tahsildar refused mutation on the ground that no No Objection Certificate issued by the Collector of Stamps had been produced, contending that stamp duty remained payable despite the compromise decree. Holding the controversy squarely covered by this Court's decision dated 9th March, 2023 in The Barshi Bar Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (PIL No.88 of 2021) — where it was held that a compromise decree effectuating partition of an agricultural land does not require compulsory registration in view of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act of 1908 and is governed by the proviso to Section 46 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 rather than requiring stamp duty on valuation — the Court allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer clause (a) and directed that necessary entries be recorded within two weeks from communication of the order.

907-WP-10275-2024.doc

Nikita

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.10275 OF 2024

Chetan Dhanykumar Narwade ...Petitioner versus

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents

Mr. Somnath Thengal for the Petitioner. Ms. Neha Bhide GP a/w Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for the State.

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : 21^st AUGUST, 2025.

ORAL ORDER (Per M. S. Karnik, J.):

Heard, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Petitioners have made an application to the Tahsildar Shirol, for

mutating their names in the 7/12 extract on the basis of the decree passed by the Civil Court Kurundwad in Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 2022. Parties entered into a compromise. Suit was for partition of agricultural lands. By the Impugned order, the Tahsildar Shirol by the Impugned order dated 31.01.2024 refused to enter the names of the Petitioners on

the ground that the Petitioners have not produced No Objection Certificate issued by the Collector of Stamps.

Learned Government Pleader argued in support of the Impugned

1 of 3

907-WP-10275-2024.doc

order. She submitted that though there is a compromise decree in favour of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is still liable to pay the appropriate stamp duty and it is only on the issuance of the NOC to be obtained from the Collector of Stamps that further action can be taken by the Tashildar Shirol for entering the names of the Petitioners in the 7/12 extracts.

In our opinion, the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 9^th March, 2023 in the case of The Barshi Bar Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Public Interest Litigation No.88 of 2021. This Court in paragraph No.18 has held that a compromise decree in respect of the agricultural land is not required to be compulsorily registered under the provisions of the Act of 1908. In paragraph No.19, this Court held that on reading of Section 46 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 in its entirety, along with its proviso, an irresistible conclusion can be drawn i.e. compromise decree effectuating partition of an agricultural land, does not require compulsory registration in view of the Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act of 1908 and it would also not require payment of the stamp duty on valuation of property, but would be governed by the proviso Section 46 of the Act, 1958.

In this view of the matter we have no hesitation in allowing the writ petition.

2 of 3

907-WP-10275-2024.doc

The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

Necessary entries be recorded within the period of two weeks

from the date of communication of this order.

The writ petition is disposed off.

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] [M.S. KARNIK, J.]

3 of 3