Prestige Exora Business Parks Ltd., Vs the Regional… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

Prestige Exora Business Parks Ltd., Vs the Regional… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: order dated 23.09.2019 (Annexure-A) in STP(A) 05/2018-19 passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent No.2 set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh adjudication of stamp duty under Article 5(f) and Article 41(ea) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, to be concluded within two months from receipt of certified copy of the order; any excess stamp duty found to have been paid by the petitioner (including the Rs.38,61,100/- paid towards registration) to be refunded.

Issue for consideration

Whether the stamp duty payable by the petitioner (developer) on the Joint Development Agreement dated 03.07.2017 and General Power of Attorney dated 03.07.2017 ought to have been adjudicated taking into consideration the claim that the petitioner, being a developer, is seeking a 50% share in the schedule property, under Article 5(f) and Article 41(ea) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, rather than on the basis adopted by the respondent-authorities. +2 more

Court's answer

Both the respondent-authorities committed an error in ignoring the language employed under Article 5(f) of the Stamp Act; the stamp duty payable by the petitioner ought to have been calculated in terms of Article 5(f) of the Stamp Act and Article 41(ea) of the Stamp Act, considering the petitioner's position as developer seeking a 50% share.

Ratio / Principle

The Circular dated 21.10.2016 cannot be made applicable because the Act itself provides for payment of stamp duty as per Article 5(f) of the Stamp Act; respondent No.2 is required to consider the language employed as per Article 5(f) of the Stamp Act and conclude the matter within two months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

Key takeaways

The order dated 23.09.2019 (Annexure-A) in Appeal No. STP(A) 05/2018-19 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside.ratio¶54
The order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above.ratio¶54
Respondent No.2 shall rehear the matter taking into consideration the observations made above and conclude the entire proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - Articles 5(f) and 41(ea) - Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney dated 03.07.2017 executed by landowners (respondent Nos. 4 and 5) in favour of developer-petitioner for commercial development of property admeasuring 50,000 Sq.Ft. at St. John's Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore, with 50:50 sharing - petitioner computed stamp duty under Articles 5(f) and 41(ea) - District Registrar, by order dated 30.04.2018, demanded additional stamp duty of Rs.77,22,200/- based on Circular dated 21.10.2016 read with Section 28 - appeal STP(A) 05/2018-19 dismissed by Regional Commissioner on 23.09.2019 - Held: both authorities erred in ignoring Article 5(f), under which stamp duty is provided for development of immovable property; the Circular dated 21.10.2016 cannot be made applicable since the Act itself provides for payment of stamp duty as per Article 5(f) - both orders set aside; matter remitted to District Registrar for fresh adjudication, to be concluded within two months - registration effected on payment of Rs.38,61,100/- pursuant to interim order dated 02.06.2023; any excess stamp duty found on fresh adjudication to be refunded to the petitioner.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48451 WP No. 4967 of 2020

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.4967 OF 2020 (GM-ST/RN)

BETWEEN:

PRESTIGE EXORA BUSINESS PARKS LTD., (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956) REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - LEGAL SRI T ARVIND PAI REGISTERED OFFICE AT "THE FALCON HOUSE", NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION, 2^ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027.

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS SHIVAJINAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48451 WP No. 4967 of 2020

HC-KAR

3^RD FLOOR, TRUMPH TOWERS, NO.48, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU - 560001.

THE SUB-REGISTRAR SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560001.

MRS. BHARATHI MAHENDER W/O LATE MR. A T NAHENDER, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O NO.6/1, ST. JOHNS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560042.

MR. KARTHIK MAHENDER S/O LATE MR. A. T. NAHENDER, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O NO.4, ST. JOHNS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560042.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 & R5 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 02.03.2021)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN APPEAL BEARING STP(A) NO.05/2018-19 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48451 WP No. 4967 of 2020

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 23.09.2019 in Appeal No.STP(A) 05/2018-19 passed by the first respondent and the order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure-B) passed by the second respondent, inter alia, sought for a direction to respondent No.3 to refund the entire stamp duty of Rs.38,61,100/- to the petitioner which has been paid by the petitioner as per Annexure-C.

Heard Sri. K.N. Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Smt. Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

The perusal of the writ petition would indicate that respondent Nos.4 and 5 claim to be the owners of the property in question measuring to an extent of 50,000 Sq.Ft. forming

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48451 WP No. 4967 of 2020

HC-KAR

part of Municipal No.6 (Old Municipal No.5), St. John's Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 entrusted the land in question for the purpose of commercial development, to the petitioner in terms of the Joint Development Agreement dated 03.07.2017 (Annexure-D), and also General Power of Attorney dated 03.07.2017 came to be executed by the respondents as per Annexure-D1. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that the petitioner and the land owners agreed to share the development in the ratio of 50:50. Further, the land owners agreed to convey / transfer 50% of undivided share, right, title and interest of the schedule property to the petitioner. In this regard, the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney was presented before respondent No.3 on 03.07.2017 for registration and the petitioner had arrived at the market value of the property for the purpose of stamp duty by taking into consideration the provision under Article 5(f) and Article 41(ea) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Stamp Act') as on the date of presentation of the Joint Development Agreement and the General Power of Attorney. However, in view of dispute with regard to payment of stamp duty is

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48451 WP No. 4967 of 2020

HC-KAR

concerned, the matter was remitted to the District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps as per Annexure-F to the writ petition. The respondent No.2, vide order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure-B) arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has to pay the difference/additional stamp duty of Rs.77,22,200/- within 90 days from the date of the order. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has challenged the order at Annexure-B before respondent No.1 in STP(A) 5/2018-19 and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.09.2019, dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

Sri. K.N. Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel, invited the attention of the Court to the provisions under Article 5(f) and Article 41(ea) of the Karnataka Stamp Act and further submitted that both the authorities have committed an error in not adjudicating the payment of stamp duty taking into consideration the claim made by the petitioner that he being a developer is seeking share of 50% in the schedule property. It

is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner has deposited the statutory deposit amount before

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48451 WP No. 4967 of 2020

HC-KAR

the Appellate Authority at the time of filing of the appeal and

also invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 02.06.2023 passed by this Court in respect of the payment of Rs.38,61,100/- so as to effect registration of document taking into consideration the exigencies in the matter. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 02.06.2023, the registration of the Joint Development Agreement 03.07.2017 and General Power of Attorney dated 03.07.2017 was accepted on payment of additional stamp duty of Rs.38,61,100/- as per the order of this Court and the registration was completed on 12.06.2025 under protest, subject to the result of the writ petition.

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the action of the respondent - authorities and it is argued by the learned Additional Government Advocate by referring to the Circular dated 21.10.2016 wherein, taking into consideration Section 28 of the Karnataka Stamp Act (additional stamp duty is payable) and therefore sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48451 WP No. 4967 of 2020

HC-KAR

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the writ papers would indicate that the petitioner is a developer and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the owners of the schedule property. In view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 for developing the property, as such the Joint Development Agreement dated 03.07.2017 and the General Power of Attorney dated 03.07.2017 were executed and presented before respondent No.3 for consideration. Taking into consideration the language employed under Article 5(f) of the Stamp Act, wherein it provides for payment of stamp duty in respect of the development of immovable property or a portion thereof, the respondent - authorities ought to have calculated the stamp duty payable by the petitioner in terms of Article 5(f) of the Stamp Act and Article 41(ea) of the Stamp Act. In that view of the matter, both the authorities have committed an error in ignoring the language employed under Article 5(f) of the Stamp Act and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48451 WP No. 4967 of 2020

HC-KAR

In the result, the writ petition is allowed .

The order dated 23.09.2019 (Annexure-A) in Appeal No. STP(A) 05/2018-19 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside and the order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made above. It is also made clear that respondent No.2 shall rehear the matter taking into consideration the observation made above and conclude the entire proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that as the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before this Court in the present writ petition, and thereafter based on the order passed by this Court on 02.06.2023, the petitioner appears to have paid Rs.38,61,100/- before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar for registration of the Joint Development Agreement dated 03.07.2017 and Power of Attorney dated 03.07.2017 are concerned. It is also made clear that the entire

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:48451 WP No. 4967 of 2020

HC-KAR

discussion made by respondent No.2 is based on the Circular dated 21.10.2016 which cannot be made applicable on the ground that the Act itself provides for payment of stamp duty as per Article 5(f) of the Stamp Act and therefore, respondent No.2 is required to consider the language employed as per Article 5(f) of the Stamp Act and conclude the matter within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Based on such conclusion that may be arrived at by the respondent No.2, if there is any excess stamp duty paid by the petitioner, same be refunded to the petitioner.

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 23.09.2019 in Appeal STP(A) No.05/2018-19 passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the petitioner's appeal, together with the order dated 30.04.2018 passed by respondent No.2 demanding additional stamp duty of Rs.77,22,200/-; both orders challenged in this writ petition.¶31
First respondent (Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division) for the appellate order dated 23.09.2019; second respondent (District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, Shivajinagar) for the order dated 30.04.2018 · 23.09.2019 (Annexure-A); 30.04.2018 (Annexure-B)
Prior proceeding
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, owners of the schedule property (about 50,000 Sq.Ft., Municipal No.6 (Old Municipal No.5), St. John's Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore), entrusted the land to the petitioner for commercial development under Joint Development Agreement dated 03.07.2017 (Annexure-D) and executed General Power of Attorney dated 03.07.2017 (Annexure-D1); development to be shared 50:50.¶36
Prior proceeding
The Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney were presented before respondent No.3 on 03.07.2017 for registration; petitioner arrived at market value for stamp duty under Article 5(f) and Article 41(ea) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.¶36
Prior proceeding
In view of dispute regarding payment of stamp duty, the matter was remitted to the District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps as per Annexure-F to the writ petition.¶39
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2, vide order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure-B), concluded that the petitioner had to pay difference/additional stamp duty of Rs.77,22,200/- within 90 days from the date of the order.¶39
Prior proceeding
Petitioner challenged the Annexure-B order before respondent No.1 in STP(A) 5/2018-19; the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.09.2019 dismissed the appeal.¶39
Prior proceeding
Petitioner deposited the statutory pre-deposit amount before the Appellate Authority at the time of filing of the appeal.¶44
Prior proceeding
Notice to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was dispensed with vide order dated 02.03.2021.¶24
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to interim order dated 02.06.2023 of this Court, registration of the Joint Development Agreement dated 03.07.2017 and General Power of Attorney dated 03.07.2017 was accepted on payment of additional stamp duty of Rs.38,61,100/- and registration was completed on 12.06.2025 under protest, subject to the result of the writ petition.¶45