Narayan Ramchandra Kharat And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3592 Bom

                                                                                        29wp695.doc

                      ssp           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 695 OF 2021

                      Narayan Ramchandra Kharat & Anr.                        ...Petitioners
                      vs.
                      The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                       ...Respondents

                      Mr.Umesh Pawar for the Petitioners
                      Ms P.J.Gavhane, AGP for State.

                                                 CORAM : K.K.TATED AND
ShubhaS.
Pathak
                                                         RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

Digitally signed by

DATE : FEBRUARY 25, 2021.

ShubhaS. Pathak Date: 2021.03.03 11:06:27 +0530

P. C. :

                      .          Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                      2            By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

Petitioner is challenging the letter cum Order dated 10 th November 2020 issued by the Respondents directing the Petitioner to pay stamp duty on properties involved in the Consent Decree.

3 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the present proceedings Petitioners filed R.C.S.No.7 of 2020 before CJ.J.D.-8 Islampur for partition and separate possession of the HUF property. In the said suit they file Consent Terms. On the basis of the Consent Terms, trial Court passed order dated 8th February 2020 passing Consent Decree. Thereafter, Petitioner tendered the said Consent Decree to the Respondents for registration. At that time, Respondent No.3 issued impugned letter cum Order dated 10 th November 2020 calling upon the Petitioner to pay Rs.1,39,300/- as stamp duty and Rs.61,300 as penalty totalling Rs.2,00,600/-

29wp695.doc

4 Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the Judgment of this Court in case of Arvind s/o Yeshwantrao Deshpande vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2003 (3) MhLJ 1039], it is not necessary to pay stamp duty. He relied upon paragraph 4 of the said decision which reads thus:

"4 In view of above referred decisions of the Apex Court, it is clear that the property received by the coparcener in the partition of joint Hindu famly property is not a transfer and therefore, registration of transfer deed is not necessary. We direct the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioner for mutation according to law without insisting on registration of the document. With these observations, the petition is disposed of."

5 On the basis of this fact, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned letter cum Order dated 10 th November 2020 issued by Respondent No.3 may be set aside directing the Respondents to register Consent Decree without payment of stamp duty.

6 Considering the above mentioned facts and as there is no reply on the part of the Respondents, following order is passed:

(a) Respondents to file their reply on or before 15 th March 2021 with copy to the other side.

(b) Rejoinder, if any, to be filed on or before 19 th March 2021 with copy to the other side.

(c) Matter to appear on board on 26th March 2020.

(d) Respondents are directed not to take any coercive action on the basis of letter cum Order dated 10th November 2020.

[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.]                                    [ K.K.TATED, J.]