Bombay High Court
Ashish N Mhatre vs The Joint District Registrar And Stamp ... on 6 February, 2025
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2025:BHC-AS:6605-DB
1/6 34 WP 13438-24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13438 OF 2024
Ashish N Mhatre .. Petitioner
Versus
The Joint District Registrar And .. Respondents
Stamp Collector And Ors
...
Mr. Amogh K. Karandikar for Petitioner.
Mrs.Neha S Bhide, GP with Smt. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for
Respondent No.1, 2 and 4.
CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ &
BHARATI DANGRE, J
DATED : 6th FEBRUARY, 2025
JUDGMENT:
- (PER BHARATI DANGRE J)
1. The present Writ Petition seek to challenge the non-
compliance of the order dated 4/01/2024 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No.8797 of 2021 and the accusation levelled
against the respondent no.1, is that it has failed to exercise the
powers under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and other applicable
laws to recover the stamp duty from the defaulter members of
respondent no.3.
2. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader Mrs. Neha Bhide for respondent
nos.1, 2 and 4. The petitioner, a member of respondent no.3
Ashish
2/6 34 WP 13438-24.doc
society filed a complaint to the Joint District Registrar and Stamp
Collector, Thane on 25/09/2017, complaining about illegal
transfer of property /flats/units of the respondent no.3 society
without payment of necessary stamp duty at the instance of the
occupiers/ possessors of the flat. In the complaint, he supplied the
necessary details of the occupiers/possessors and prayed for a
detailed enquiry to be conducted in the issue of non-payment of
stamp duty.
The petitioner also filed another complaint on
5/10/2017, in continuation of his earlier complaint seeking a
similar relief.
3. The respondent no.1 on taking cognizance of the
complaint, issued notice to the respondent no.3 society, and
directed to secure its presence after furnishing the reply. The
respondent no.3 society marked its presence before the
respondent no.1, and also furnished the written submissions and
the petitioner filed his counter written submissions and continued
with his stand that the respondent no.3 society did not pay the
requisite stamp duty and still the letters of allotments were issued
in favour of the defaulters, by the society.
4. Pursuant to the above, on 3/02/2018 a notice was
issued to the respondent no.3 society, when it transpired that
certain flat purchasers had not paid the stamp duty as per the
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 and though the petitioner waited
for the response and final outcome of his complaint and
Ashish
3/6 34 WP 13438-24.doc
addressed repeated communications to the Society to furnish the
documents, there was no compliance.
5. This constrained the petitioner to approach this Court
by filing a Writ Petition No.8797 of 2021, seeking direction to
the respondent no.1 to complete the enquiry/the notice reference
No. 1185-59 of 2017, and the Writ Petition was disposed of by
order dated 13/12/2021, by directing the respondent no.1 to
complete the enquiry within a period of eight weeks.
In the disposed of petition, the petitioner moved an
Interim Application No.2458 of 2022, once again praying for a
relief that the enquiry be concluded in a time bound manner,
without further delay and report to that effect be submitted to the
Court.
Another Interim Application No. 49 of 2024, was
filed praying for imposition of restrain on the respondent no.3
society from carrying out further steps in respect of
redevelopment and for restraining the flat holders, who are
defaulters and/or having no title of their respective flats from
participating/casting votes in the General Body Meeting of
respondent no.3 society.
Interim Application No.2681 of 2022, was filed by
the State Government, which sought extension of time to
implement the order dated 13/12/2021.
6. By order dated 4/01/2024, the Division Bench, noted
that once the Writ Petition was disposed of, the Court has become
Ashish
4/6 34 WP 13438-24.doc
functus officio and therefore, the applications filed by the
petitioner do not deserve any consideration, as any further
directions would not be within the scope of the orders which are
already passed, which left it to the State Government/Stamp
Authority to take appropriate view of the matter in relation to the
complaint of the petitioner. The Division Bench thus passed the
following order:-
"9. We make it clear that the State Government would examine all
the documents which are submitted, and in the event the documents
are not submitted, the authority and powers of the State
Government are clearly defined under the Bombay Stamp Act and
in exercise of such powers, appropriate action can be resorted, in the
event some of the members are not co-operating in submitting their
documents. Moreover, it would be in the interest of members of the
society to co-operate and get their documents corrected, in the event
there is any deficiency on the stamp duty payable on the documents.
10.Needless to observe that the State Government would take all
appropriate steps in accordance with law, in the interest of the State
revenue."
7. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner seek the
implementation of the aforesaid direction and when we
repeatedly enquired with the learned counsel for the petitioner, as
to how this relief would lie against the respondent no.3, the
Society, he has responded by stating that there is no compliance of
the direction issued by this Court and infact the direction, which
he is seeking in this petition is against respondent no.1, who has
failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in its
order dated 4/01/2024.
8. Reading of the order dated 4/01/2024, would reveal
that the directions are issued to the State to examine all the
documents and as it would be in interest of the members of the
Ashish
5/6 34 WP 13438-24.doc
Society to cooperate and get their documents corrected, in the
event there is any deficiency of the stamp duty payable on the
documents, the State would take all appropriate steps in
accordance with law.
9. Once the direction is issued to the State Government,
it is expected to act, and we do not think that at the instance of
the petitioner, we would be justified in granting the relief
restraining the society from proceeding with its re-development
or taking steps in that regard. We also do not find any justification
in restraining the flat holders, who are alleged to be defaulters
from participation in the meetings of the general body pending
the enquiry.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course
of hearing has circulated a draft amendment which seek to replace
his existing prayers with prayer clause (a) and (b). We have
considered the proposed amended prayers, which seek writ of
mandamus against the respondent no.1 to submit a report of the
enquiry and also to submit details of the stamp duty recovered till
date and the list of defaulter members of the respondent no.3,
society.
11. Even on consideration of the proposed amended
prayers, we are not inclined to grant the said relief, as once the
respondent no.1 is directed to conduct an enquiry by this Court,
it shall be taken to its logical end and upon the report being made
available, the course of action in law shall follow. At this stage, we
Ashish
6/6 34 WP 13438-24.doc
do not think it is within our powers to direct the respondent no.1
to take action against the defaulters in specific or restrain them
from participating in the business of respondent no.3, society.
Even by considering the draft amendment to the Writ Petition,
the Petition do not deserve to be entertained.
12. The Writ Petition with the relief sought therein,
therefore, do not deserve to be entertained but we must only
record that the State Government and the Respondent Authority
shall take the order of this Court of 4/01/2024, to its logical
conclusion.
With the above observations, Writ Petition is
dismissed.
(BHARATI DANGRE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Ashish
