Dismissed¶78

The District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps v. M/S Alyssia Property Partners LLP

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2026WA/2145/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court Division Bench (Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha), WA No. 2145 of 2025 (GM-ST/RN), decided 11.03.2026, appeal dismissed. Stamp duty deficiency reassessment under Section 46A, Karnataka Stamp Act 1957, set aside; Article 20(1) conveyance versus Article 20(2) promoter/flat instruments; whole commercial complex (plot plus building) conveyed under single sale deed is not a conveyance of 'flats'; guideline value versus reassessed market value; District Registrar Shivajinagar; Kolte Patil Developers Ltd; Alyssia Property Partners LLP.

What did the court decide?

None to appellants; the writ appeal was dismissed, leaving intact the learned Single Judge's setting aside of the District Registrar's order dated 22.08.2016 demanding `1,33,69,813. ¶78

The District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps Vs M/S Alyssia Property Partners LLP — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to appellants; the writ appeal was dismissed, leaving intact the learned Single Judge's setting aside of the District Registrar's order dated 22.08.2016 demanding `1,33,69,813.

¶78

Issue for consideration

Whether the District Registrar's decision to assess the market value of the subject property as the sum of the values of the separate areas of the commercial complex is sustainable. +1 more

¶46

Court's answer

The respondent purchased the entire plot of land along with the commercial complex built thereon under a single sale deed, not separate commercial flats; therefore the District Registrar's decision to reassess the guidance value by separately valuing each floor at commercial flat rates is not sustainable.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

It was not permissible to construe the sale deed as an instrument conveying separate self-contained premises forming part of a building; the deed conveyed a singular building constructed on commercial land, and stamp duty had to be determined by reference to the instrument.

¶76

Key takeaways

Given the tenor of the sale deed, Article 20(1) of the Schedule to the Act (duty at 5% of market value on conveyance as defined in clause (d) of Section 2) is applicable, and not Article 20(2).ratio¶57
The District Registrar had rightly determined the market value on the basis of the market value of the land and the cost of construction at the material time; the impermissible step was the subsequent reassessment on the assumption that the sale deed was covered by Article 20(2) of the Schedule.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal dismissed; the learned Single Judge's order dated 08.07.2025 in W.P.No.53061/2016 (GM-ST/RN) stands. A single sale deed dated 31.10.2014 (executed by Kolte Patil Developers Limited in favour of M/s Alyssia Property Partners LLP) conveyed an entire commercial plot (18,137 sq ft) with the building thereon (52,465 sq ft) for Rs.36 crore; duty correctly falls under Article 20(1) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (5% of market value on conveyance as defined in clause (d) of Section 2). The District Registrar's Section 46A reassessment valuing each floor separately at commercial-flat rates (arriving at market value of Rs.56,25,73,228 and a demand of Rs.1,33,69,813) was held unsustainable: the deed conveyed no separate self-contained 'flats', so Article 20(2) read with Section 2(a) of the Karnataka Ownership Flats Act, 1972 did not apply. The Court affirmed that the original valuation based on land value plus cost of construction was rightly made, finding no infirmity in the Single Judge's order setting aside the reassessment.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB WA No. 2145 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 2145 OF 2025 (GM-ST/RN)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS SHIVAJINAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT 4^TH FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS NO.122/2, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

¶11

THE SUB-REGISTRAR SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI K S HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by K P SWETHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

M/S ALYSSIA PROPERTY PARTNERS LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.41 KORAMANGALA, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE 4^TH B CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560095 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER MR. SANJEEV JOSHI

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB WA No. 2145 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1964 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.53061/2016 (GM-ST/RN) AND THEREBY CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2016 PASSED BY THE APPELLANT, BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL AMD ETC.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 08.07.2025 [ impugned order ] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.53061/2016 [GM-ST/RN].

¶26

The respondent had filed the said petition impugning an order dated 22.08.2016 passed by appellant No.1 [ District Registrar ] calling upon the respondent to pay the deficient stamp duty and registration fees amounting to 1,13,44,081/- and 20,25,732/- (totalling `1,33,69,813/-) within a period of ninety days from the date of the said order.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB WA No. 2145 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The District Registrar passed the said order in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 46A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 [ the Act ].

¶30

The District Registrar had determined that the conveyance deed in respect of the commercial property situated at Municipal No.23 (Old No.28), Richmond Road, Bengaluru City, Richmond Town, measuring an area of 18,137 square feet, was inadequately stamped.

¶31

Kolte Patil Developers Limited had executed the sale deed dated 31.10.2014 for the subject property in favour of the respondent for a consideration of 36,00,00,000 (Rupees Thirty Six Crores). The same was registered on 31.10.2014, and the stamp duty of 2,01,60,020/-, as well as the registration fees of `36,00,000/-, were paid in respect of the said conveyance deed.

¶32

It is material to note that the commercial property comprises a basement measuring 10,270 square feet, a ground floor measuring 8,380 square feet, a mezzanine floor measuring 2,806 square feet, a first floor measuring 9,852 square feet, a second floor measuring 10,124 square feet, a third floor measuring 10,124

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB WA No. 2145 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

square feet, and a terrace measuring 909 square feet. The plot of land measures 18,137 square feet, and the total area of the building constructed thereon measures 52,465 square feet. The said property was a commercial property.

¶36

Notwithstanding that the building had been conveyed for a consideration of 36,00,00,000/- and the guideline value of the said property was assessed at 35,25,92,600/-, the District Registrar concluded that the market value of the subject property was higher than the one assessed at the material time.

¶37

It is material to note the guideline value for the residential property was 11,200/- per square feet. The said value was required to be increased by 40% as the property in question was a commercial land. Accordingly, the value of the plot of commercial land was determined at 28,43,88,160/- (18,137 square feet x 15,680/-). The cost of construction was determined at 1,300/- per square feet (52,465 square feet x `1,300/-).

¶38

Apparently, certain audit observations were made regarding the method used to assess the guideline price. In view of the audit observations, the District Registrar proceeded on the basis that the

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB WA No. 2145 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

areas of the separate floors were required to be determined at the guidance value for built-up flats in a commercial complex as against the land and building valued at the time of registration of the conveyance deed. The base rate for a residential flat in a complex was required to be increased by 30% to arrive at the guidance value for a commercial flat. Accordingly, the District Registrar determined the market value of the subject property at `56,25,73,228/- as under:

¶42

SI. No.	Particulars	Site Area/Built up area	Add 30% on residential flat value for fixing commercial complex/flatValueRs.	Total
1	2	3	4	5
1.	Basement	10,270 Sft	10864/-	111573280
2.	Ground Floor	8,380 Sft	10864/-	91040320
3.	Mezzanine Floor	2,806 Sft	10864/-	30484384
4.	First Floor	9,853 Sft	10864/-	107032128
5.	Second Floor	10,124 Sft	10864/-	109987136
6.	Third Floor	10,124 Sft	10864/-	109987136
7.	Terrace	909 Sft	2716 (25% of Rs. 10864/-	2468844
			Total	56,25,73,228

¶43

The principal question to be considered is whether the District Registrar's decision to assess the market value of the

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB WA No. 2145 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

subject property as the sum of the values of the separate areas of the complex is sustainable.

¶47

It is material to note that the entire subject property was sold

¶48

by the vendor (M/s.Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.) in favour of the respondent under a single sale deed. The subject property as conveyed by the sale deed dated 31.10.2014 is described as under:

¶49

"SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶50

All that piece and parcel of the property known as "Alyssa", bearing Municipal No.23, Old No.28, Richmond Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore 560 025, having P-I-D No. 7619-23, measuring an extent of 18137 sq ft, alongwith the commercial complex comprising of Basement having a built up area of 10270 Sq ft (954.11 sq.m); Ground floor having a built up area of 8360 Stq ft (778.56 sq.m); Mezzanine having a built up area of 2806 Sq ft. (260.66 sq.m); First Floor having a built up area of 9852 5q ft (915.26 sq.m): Second Floor having a built up area of 10124 Sq ft (940.52 sq.m); Third Floor having built up area of 10124 Sq ft (940.52 sq.m) and 'Terrace having a built up area of 909 Sq. ft (4.46 sq.m) and bound as follows:

¶51

East by : Property bearing No.23/2 & 24, West by : Property bearing No.23/1 & 22, North by : King Street Rustamji Apartment and Father of Holy Cross and Private Property, South by : Richmond Road"

¶52

It is clear from the above that the respondent had purchased

¶53

the entire plot of land, including the commercial building

¶54

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB WA No. 2145 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

constructed thereon. The respondent had not purchased separate commercial flats. Thus, the District Registrar's decision to reassess the guidance value of the subject property by separately valuing each floor on the basis of the commercial rates fixed for flats in the complex is not sustainable. The assumption that the respondent had purchased separate flats is ex facie erroneous as the conveyance deed is executed in respect to the entire plot of land along with the commercial complex built thereon.

¶57

Article 20(1) of the Schedule to the Act specifies the stamp duty payable in respect of conveyance as defined under clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act as 5% of the market value of the property. Given the tenor of the sale deed in question, Article 20(1) of the Schedule to the Act is applicable.

¶58

In the present case, the District Registrar had rightly determined the market value of the subject property on the basis of the market value of the land and the cost of construction at the material time. However, the District Registrar had sought to reassess the same on the assumption that the sale deed was in

¶59

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB WA No. 2145 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

respect of the property, which was covered under Article 20(2) of

¶62

the Schedule of the Act.

¶63

15. The relevant extracts of Article 20(1) and 20(2) of the

¶64

Schedule to the Act are set out below:

¶65

Description of Instrument	Proper Stamp Duty
Art. 20.[(1)For Conveyance. As defined by clause (d) of Section 2, not being a transfer charged or exempted under No. 52, on the market value of the property which is the subject- matter of conveyance	[Five per cent of the value.] **
2) where it relates to [instrument] of conveyance executed by a promoter, a land owner, or a developer by whatever name called, pertaining to premises of 'Flat other than premises of Flat referred in clause (2-A) as defined in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972 (Karnataka Act 16 of 1973) or Apartment as defined in clause (a) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1973) or transfer of share by or in favour of Co-operative Society or Company pertaining to premises or unit and the market value of thepropertywhich is	the same duty as a conveyance under Article 20(1)] on the market value equal to the market value of the fully constructed flat or apartment or unit, irrespective of the stage of construction, deeming it as fully constructed **

Description of Instrument

Proper Stamp Duty

Art. 20.[(1)For Conveyance. As
defined by clause (d) of Section 2, not
being a transfer charged or exempted
under No. 52, on the market value of
the property which is the subject-
matter of conveyance

[Five per cent of the value.]
** ** **

2) where it relates to [instrument] of
conveyance executed by a promoter,
a land owner, or a developer by
whatever name called, pertaining to
premises of 'Flat other than premises
of Flat referred in clause (2-A) as
defined in clause (a) of Section 2 of
the
Karnataka
Ownership
Flats
(Regulation of the Promotion of
Construction, Sale, Management and
Transfer) Act, 1972 (Karnataka Act
16 of 1973) or Apartment as defined
in clause (a) of Section 3 of the
Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act,
1972 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1973) or
transfer of share by or in favour of
Co-operative Society or Company
pertaining to premises or unit and the
market value of thepropertywhich is

the
same
duty
as
a
conveyance
under
Article
20(1)] on the market value
equal to the market value of
the fully constructed flat or
apartment or unit, irrespective
of the stage of construction,
deeming
it
as
fully
constructed
** ** **

¶66

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB WA No. 2145 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

the subject matter of conveyance. ** ** **

¶69

Section 2(a) of the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of

¶70

the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972, defines a flat as under:

¶71

" Flat " means a separate and self-contained set of premises used or intended to be used for residence or office or show-room or shop or godown (and includes a garage), the premises forming part of a building"

¶72

In the present case, it would be clearly erroneous to describe the conveyance deed as an instrument of conveyance pertaining to a flat as defined under Section 2(a) of the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972.

¶73

Plain reading of the said deed in question indicates that it is not in respect of a separate and self-contained set of premises. It is a singular building constructed on commercial land. Stamp duty is payable on the instrument; thus, it is necessary to determine the stamp duty in reference to the instrument. The instrument in question (sale deed) is not an instrument that conveys separate

¶74

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB WA No. 2145 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

self-contained premises with a proportionate interest in land. In terms of the sale deed, the entire plot of commercial land and the building built thereon. Thus, it was not permissible for the District Registrar to construe it as an instrument conveying separate selfcontained premises forming a part of the building.

¶77

In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order passed by the District Registrar re-assessing the stamp duty as deficient on the basis that the sale deed was an instrument conveying separate commercial flats to the respondent.

¶78

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶79

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶80

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶81

KPS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12

The District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps v. M/S Alyssia Property Partners LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps v. M/S Alyssia Property Partners LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Tirumala Entrprises Vs the State of Karnataka

Ballenahalli Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Punith S Vs N a Kunji Ahamed

Sri.Paramjeet Singh Minhas Vs Smt.Subha Kalyan I.A.S.

Sri.M.Ramakrishna Vs Smt.Subha Kalyan I.A.S

Mr Saragu Indhira Tharun Vs the State of Karnataka