Shweta Aditya Malhotra vs The Collector Of Stamps Andheri ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 919 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shweta Aditya Malhotra vs The Collector Of Stamps Andheri ... on 28 January, 2026

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

2026:BHC-AS:4235
                                                                                 -WP12021-2025.DOC

                                                                                                 Santosh

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 12021 OF 2025

                        Shweta Aditya Malhotra                                          ...Petitioner
                                           Versus
                        The Collector of Stamps, Andheri Division                   ...Respondent

                        Mr. Saurish Shetye, a/w Pavan Pandey and Devendra
                              Agarwal, i/b Prem Kumar Pandey, for the Petitioner.
  SANTOSH
  SUBHASH               Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP for the State.
  KULKARNI
  Digitally signed by
  SANTOSH SUBHASH
  KULKARNI
                                                               CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
  Date: 2026.01.28
  20:35:47 +0530                                           Reserved On: 3rd DECEMBER, 2025
                                                        Pronounced On: 28th JANUARY, 2026

                        JUDGMENT:

-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the

consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to an

order dated 29th May, 2025 passed by the Collector of

Stamps, Andheri Division, Mumbai, whereby the Collector

has determined the duty on the sale certificate at the market

value of the subject property (Rs.8,34,91,500/-) instead of the

consideration paid at the auction sale (Rs.2,01,31,000/-).

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts

leading to this petition can be stated as under:

-WP12021-2025.DOC

3.1 The property bearing Survey No.C/1112 admeasuring

142.97 sq. mtrs., with a building standing thereon, situated

at H-Ward No.1976(2), street No.40A, Sherly Rajan Road,

Bandra West, Mumbai, was the secured asset. In Original

Application No.42/2001, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-1,

Mumbai, ('the DRT-1') had drawn up a recovery certificate in

favour of Central Bank of India, the certificate holder, towards

recovery of the certificated amount alongwith further interest

and charges, thereunder. The Recovery Officer, DRT-1,

Mumbai, had ordered the sale of the subject property. A sale

proclamation was issued on 30th September, 2021. The

petitioner was the successful purchaser in the auction held

on 29th October, 2021. Accordingly, a sale certificate

evidencing the purchase of the subject property by the

petitioner for the consideration of Rs.2,01,31,000/- was

issued by the Recovery Officer, on 24th December, 2021.

3.2 After rectification of the sale certificate, the petitioner

filed an application before the Collector of Stamps - the

respondent, for adjudication of the stamp-duty on the

corrected sale certificate. The petitioner claimed that, the

stamp-duty be calculated on the consideration of

Rs.2,01,31,000/- as paid under the court monitored auction

-WP12021-2025.DOC

process. Eventually, by an interim order dated 5 th March,

2025, the respondent determined the stamp-duty on the

value of Rs.8,34,91,500/- on the basis of an independent

market valuation. The petitioner filed objections to the said

interim determination of the duty. Ultimately, after hearing

the petitioner, the respondent passed an order dated 29 th

May, 2025 under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Stamps Act,

1958 ("the Stamp Act, 1958") adjudicating the stamp-duty on

the sale certificate on the basis of the market value of the

subject property i.e. Rs.8,34,91,500/-. Thus, the stamp-duty

under Section 25(b) was determined at Rs.50,09,490/- and

the penalty under Section 34(a)(ii) at Rs.12,02,278/-.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the writ

jurisdiction. The determination of the stamp-duty on the

basis of the market value in the face of the sale of the subject

property in an e-auction is stated to be illegal, arbitrary and

in violation of the settled legal principle that, in such cases,

the stamp-duty is to be paid on the value of the property as

discovered in the auction sale. The petitioner asserts, the

sale price fetched in a transparent auction process represents

the market value for the determination of the stamp-duty.

-WP12021-2025.DOC

5. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent.

At the outset, the tenability of the petition is assailed on the

ground of availability of an alternate efficacious statutory

remedy of an appeal under Section 32B and Section 53(1A) of

the Stamp Act, 1958.

6. On the merits of the matter, the respondent contends,

the sale of the subject property in an auction conducted by

DRT does not fall within the ambit of Rule 4(6) of the

Maharashtra Stamp (Determination of True Market Value

Property) Rules, 1965. In view of the Circular dated 15 th

December, 2021, issued by the Inspector General of

Registration and Controller of Stamps, Maharashtra State,

the stamp-duty on the sale of the property under the aegis of

the DRT is to be determined on the market value of the

property. Thus, the determination of the stamp-duty by the

respondent is in consonance with the Rules, 1965 and,

therefore, the writ petition does not deserve to be entertained.

7. I have heard Mr. Saurish Shetye, the learned Counsel

for the petitioner, and Ms. Aloka Nadkarni, the learned AGP

for the State, at some length. With the assistance of the

learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the

pleadings, impugned order and the material on record.

-WP12021-2025.DOC

8. At the outset, Mr. Shetye, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, would urge that the challenge to the

maintainability of the petition in the face of the availability of

a statutory remedy of appeal, sought to be raised on behalf of

the respondent, need not detain the Court. Mr. Shetye made

an endeavour to draw home the point that, the controversy in

this petition revolves around the correct application of legal

principles and does not involve any disputed questions of

facts. Thus, as the core question to be decided is that of

correct application of law, the High Court can decide the

issue in controversy without relegating a party to the forum

created under the Stamp Act, 1958.

9. To this end, Mr. Shetye placed a very strong reliance on

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Godrej

Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing

Authority and others1, wherein the Supreme Court elucidated

the distinction between the 'maintainability' and

'entertainability' of a writ petition. It was, inter alia,

enunciated that availability of an alternative remedy does not

operate as an absolute bar to the 'maintainability' of a writ

petition and that the rule, which requires a party to pursue

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95.

-WP12021-2025.DOC

alternative remedy provided by a statute is a rule of policy,

convenience and discretion rather than a "rule of law".

10. On the aspect of the determination of the stamp-duty in

a case of the present nature, Mr. Shetye would urge, the

controversy is no long res integra and the field is covered by

the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court. Mr.

Shetye would urge, if the Collector of Stamps has the power

to determine the value on which the stamp-duty is to be paid,

even in a case of transparent court monitored auction, it

would amount to the Collector of Stamps sitting in appeal

over the orders passed by the Court and Tribunals. Such an

interpretation cannot be countenanced.

11. A very strong reliance was placed by Mr. Shetye on a

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Registrar of

Assurance and another vs. ASL Vyapar Private Ltd. and

another2, wherein a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court

enunciated that, Court monitored auction is possibly one of

the most transparent methods by which the property can be

sold.

12. Reliance was also placed on the Division Bench

judgments of this Court in the cases of Trident Estate Private

2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1554.

-WP12021-2025.DOC

Limited and another vs. Office of Joint District Registrar-

Class-1 and others3, Collector of Stamps, Mumbai City,

Government of Maharashtra vs. Pinak Bharat & Company

and others4, and Dr. Prince John Edavazhikai vs. Collector of

Stamps and Joint District Registrar and others 5.

13. Mr. Shetye would urge, in the backdrop of the

consistent view that, where the property is sold in a court

monitored auction, the stamp-duty has to be determined on

the basis of the price discovered in such auction sale, the

impugned order being wholly unsustainable, an exceptional

case is made out for exercising the writ jurisdiction.

14. In opposition to this, Ms. Nadkarni, the learned AGP,

stoutly countered the submissions on behalf of the petitioner.

An endeavour was made by Ms. Nadkarni to draw home the

point that the sale by the Recovery Officer cannot be equated

with the Court sale. It was submitted that from the perusal

of the record it does not appear that DRT had obtained a

valuation report before putting the property for public

auction. At any rate, the valuation report has not been

annexed to the record which evidences the sale of the subject

3 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3423.

4 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 656.

5 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3872.

-WP12021-2025.DOC

property in an auction. In the absence of such material, and

especially the circular dated 15 th December, 2021, which has

been issued to avoid loss of revenue by acquiring the property

at the value which is much below the market value, the

impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from such

infirmity or perversity as to warrant interference in exercise

of the writ jurisdiction, especially when the petitioner has an

efficacious remedy of statutory appeal before the Appellate

Authority. It was urged that the petitioner be, therefore,

relegated to the remedy of statutory appeal.

15. The aforesaid rival submissions now fall for

consideration.

16. To start with, the objection raised on behalf of the

respondent to the entertainability of the petition in view of

the statutory remedy of appeal under the provisions

contained in Section 32B of the Stamp Act, 1958. As the Writ

Court exercises plenary powers, mere availability of an

alternate remedy does not preclude the High Court from

entertaining a petition. The availability of an alternate

efficacious remedy has been construed to be a self-imposed

restraint on the exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In case of

availability of statutory remedy of appeal against an order

-WP12021-2025.DOC

assailed in writ petition, ordinarily, the aggrieved party must

be relegated to exhaust the statutory remedy. A useful

reference in this context can be made to the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishnan Industries vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.6

17. A slightly different consideration, however, comes into

play where the issue to be decided in writ petition against an

order passed by the Statutory Authority, involves a pure

question of law and does not warrant investigation into facts.

In such cases, the High Court may examine the issue without

relegating the party to the alternate remedy.

18. In the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra), the

Supreme Court after adverting to the previous

pronouncements, including the judgments in the cases of

Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registration of Trademarks7 and

The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh 8, elucidated

the distinction between the 'maintainability' and

'entertainability' of the writ petition. The following

observations in paragraphs 4 and 8 of the judgment are

instructive:

6 (2021) 6 SCC 771.

7 (1998) 8 SCC 1.

8 1958 SCR 595.

-WP12021-2025.DOC

"4. ......... In a long line of decisions, this Court has made it clear that availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition and that the rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Though elementary, it needs to be restated that "entertainability" and "maintainability" of a writ petition are distinct concepts. The fine but real distinction between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The objection as to "maintainability" goes to the root of the matter and if such objection were found to be of substance, the courts would be rendered incapable of even receiving the lis for adjudication. On the other hand, the question of "entertainability" is entirely within the realm of discretion of the high courts, writ remedy being discretionary. A writ petition despite being maintainable may not be entertained by a high court for very many reasons or relief could even be refused to the petitioner, despite setting up a sound legal point, if grant of the claimed relief would not further public interest. Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a high court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper.

8. That apart, we may also usefully refer to the decisions of this Court reported in (1977) 2 SCC 724 (State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.) and (2000) 10 SCC 482 (Union of India vs. State of Haryana). What appears on a plain reading of the former decision is that whether a certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure question of law and if investigation into facts is unnecessary, the high court could entertain a writ petition in its discretion even though the alternative remedy was not availed of; and, unless exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court would not interfere. In the latter decision, this Court found the issue raised by the appellant to be pristinely legal requiring determination by the high court without putting the appellant through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy. What follows from the said decisions is that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available."

(emphasis supplied)

-WP12021-2025.DOC

19. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the case

at hand, it appears that the core controversy that wrenches

to the fore is, whether the respondent correctly applied the

law in the matter of determination of the stamp-duty. To put

it in other words, the legal question that crops up for

consideration is, if a property is purchased in an auction sale

conducted through the aegis of DRT, whether the stamp-duty

should be determined on the consideration at which the

property was purchased or on the market value as may be

determined by the Collector of Stamps? In a sense, the

aforesaid question appears to be a question of law and much

investigation into the facts is not warranted. In this view of

the matter, this Court is persuaded to entertain the petition

despite availability of a statutory remedy of appeal, as the

core controversy can be resolved by applying the principles of

law.

20. Article 16 of Schedule-I appended to the Stamp Act,

1958 prescribes that the stamp-duty on a certificate of sale,

granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public

auction by a Civil or Revenue Court, or Collector or other

Revenue Officer or any other officer empowered by law to sell

property by pubic auction, shall be the same as is leviable on

-WP12021-2025.DOC

a Conveyance under clause (a), (b) or (c), as the case may be,

of Article 25 on the market value of the property. Article 25,

in turn, provides that on a Conveyance, not being transfer

charged or exempted under Article 59, the stamp-duty be

levied on the true market value of the property which is the

subject matter of Conveyance; at 5% of the market value of

the property.

21. To determine the market value of the property, in

exercise of the powers conferred by Section 69 and 32A of the

Stamp Act, 1958, the State Government has framed the

rules, "the Maharashtra Stamp (Determination of True

Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995". Under clause (f1) of

Rule 2, "valuation guidelines" mean the guidelines issued by

the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority from time to time for

determination of the market value of a property on the basis

of annual statement of rates. Rule 4(3) enjoins the Chief

Controlling Revenue Authority to issue annual statement of

rates showing average rates of lands and buildings situated in

a particular area.

22. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 4, which bears upon the

determination of the controversy at hand, reads as under:

-WP12021-2025.DOC

"Rule 4(6) Every registering officer shall, when the instrument is produced before his for registration, verify in each case the market value of land and buildings,etc., as the case may be, from the above statement and if he finds the market value as stated in the instrument, less than the minimum value, prescribed by the statement, he shall refer the same to the Collector of the District for determination of the true market value of the property which is the subject matter of the instrument and the proper duty payable thereon:

[Provided that, if a property is sold or allotted by Government or Semi Government body or a Government Undertaking or a Local Authority on the basis of the predetermined price, then value determined by said bodies, shall be the true market value of the subject matter property.] [Provided further that, where the property is purchased or acquired or taken over by the Government, Semi-Government Body or a Government Undertaking or Local Authority, then the actual value determined as consideration by the said bodies as mentioned in the deed, shall be considered to be the true market value of the subject matter property.] [Provided also that] where the market value has been stated in accordance with or more than that prescribed in the statement issued by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, but the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the true valuation of the immoveable property cannot be arrived at without having recourse to local enquiry or extraneous evidence he may, before registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector of the District for determination of true market value of property and the proper duty payable thereon.

23. Under the first proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 if a

property is sold or allotted by Government or Semi

Government body or a Government Undertaking or a Local

Authority on the basis of the predetermined price, then value

determined by said bodies, shall be the true market value of

the subject matter property. In contrast, under the second

proviso, if the property is purchased or acquired by the

-WP12021-2025.DOC

Government or its enterprises or Local Authority, then the

actual consideration paid, shall be considered as true market

value of the subject property.

24. The sale of the property by Court or Tribunal which is

statutorily empowered to sale the property in execution of the

decree/award/recovery certificate does not find mention in

the first proviso to sub-rule (6). Under a circular issued by

the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dated 13 th October,

2006, certain guidelines were issued to ascertain whether the

sale by the authorities like DRT and Charity Commissioner

was in a transparent manner. By a subsequent circular

dated 15th December, 2021, the earlier circulars have been

withdrawn and it has been directed that the true market

value would be determined as per the guidelines for the

determination of the market value of the property considering

the rate as per Annual Statement of Rates (ASR) in relation

to the concerned property. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on

behalf of the respondent, an endeavour has been made to

justify the impugned order on the basis of the aforesaid

provisions of Rule 4(6) and the circular dated 15 th December,

2021.

-WP12021-2025.DOC

25. Can a situation be countenanced, even where the Court

or Tribunal sells the property, in accordance with the

provisions governing the sale of the property and in a

transparent manner with a view to achieve the optimum

price, the stamp-duty on the sale certificate be determined by

the Collector of Stamps, de hors the consideration at which

the sale takes effect? If a property is sold in a Court auction,

after following a rigorous process aimed at discovery of the

optimum price, such price, in effect, represents the price of

the property at which a willing buyer was prepared to

purchase the subject property, with all its advantages and

disadvantages, in a competitive bidding. Secondly, such a

sale has the imprimatur of the Court. An order of acceptance

of the bid implies that, in the given situation, the bid at

which the property was sold, in the view of the Court,

represented the true market value of the property. In such

circumstances, can the Collector of Stamps be permitted to

sit in judgment over the value of the property at which the

sale takes effect, is the moot question.

26. In a series of judgments, albeit in different facts-

situations, the aforesaid question has been consistently

answered in the negative. In the case of ASL Vyapar (supra),

-WP12021-2025.DOC

in the context of the provisions contained in Section 47A of

the Indian Stamp (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1919, which

contains provisions for determination of the market value of

the property, the Supreme Court enunciated that the said

provisions cannot be said to have any application to a public

auction carried out through Court process/Receiver as that

is the most transparent manner of obtaining the correct

market value of the property. The observations of the

Supreme Court in paragraphs 24 to 26 are material and

hence extracted below:

"24. On the conspectus of the matter, we have not the slightest hesitation in upholding the view that the provision of Section 47A of the Act cannot be said to have any application to a public auction carried out through court process/receiver as that is the most transparent manner of obtaining the correct market value of the property.

25. It is no doubt true that in a court auction, the price obtainable may be slightly less as any bidder has to take care of a scenario where the auction may be challenged which could result in passage of time in obtaining perfection of title, with also the possibility of it being overturned. But then that is a price obtainable as a result of the process by which the property has to be disposed of. We cannot lose sight of the very objective of the introduction of the Section whether under the West Bengal Amendment Act or in any other State, i.e., that in case of under valuation of property, an aspect not uncommon in our country, where consideration may be passing through two modes - one the declared price and the other undeclared component, the State should not be deprived of the revenue. Such transactions do not reflect the correct price in the document as something more has been paid through a different method. The objective is to take care of such a scenario so that the State revenue is not affected and the price actually obtainable in a free market should be capable of being stamped. If one may say, it is, in fact, a reflection on the manner in which the

-WP12021-2025.DOC

transfer of an immovable property takes place as the price obtainable in a transparent manner would be different. An auction of a property is possibly one of the most transparent methods by which the property can be sold. Thus, to say that even in a court monitored auction, the Registering Authority would have a say on what is the market price, would amount to the Registering Authority sitting in appeal over the decision of the Court permitting sale at a particular price.

26. It is not as if a public auction is carried out just like that. The necessary pre-requisites require fixation of a minimum price and other aspects to be taken care of so that the bidding process is transparent. Even after the bidding process is completed the court has a right to cancel the bid and such bids are subject to confirmation by the court. Once the court is satisfied that the bid price is the appropriate price on the basis of the material before it and gives its imprimatur to it, any interference by the Registering Authority on the aspect of price of transaction would be wholly unjustified."

(emphasis supplied)

27. The Supreme Court has, thus, in terms held that to

concede the power to Registering Authority, even in a court

monitored auction, to say what is the market price, would

amount to the Registering Authority sitting in appeal over the

decision of the Court permitting sale at a particular price.

28. Following the aforesaid pronouncement, in the case of

Pinak Bharat (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held

that due deference and sanctity has to be attached to a Court

monitored auction as such an auction of a property is

possibly one of the most transparent methods by which the

property can be sold. In the facts of the said case, it was

held, it would not be permissible for the Registering Authority

-WP12021-2025.DOC

to sit in appeal over the price fixed by the court. Such a

course in no manner has the effect of making the powers of

the Registering Authority under the Act or the Rules

redundant as, in all other cases, the authority can always

determine the market value in accordance with the provisions

of the Act and the Rules.

29. In the case of Spectrum Constructions and Developers

LLP vs. State of Maharashtra, through Joint District

Registrar9, the question arose in the context of sale of the

property in an auction which was accepted by Justice Lodha

Committee, which was appointed by the Supreme Court for

disposal of the property of a defaulting company. In that

context, the Division Bench held that there was no question

of the Stamp Authorities determining any other value as the

market value of the property. The only value to be accepted

was the bid amount accepted by the Committee.

30. In the case of Dr. Prince John Edavazhikai (supra) the

sale by public auction conducted by Bank of India, the

secured creditor. When the Authorities under the Stamp Act,

1958 disputed the consideration being the true market value

of the property, a Division Bench of this Court repelled the

9 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3693.

-WP12021-2025.DOC

objection on two counts. First, Bank of India being a

Government undertaking, the sale was covered by the first

proviso to Rule 4(6). Second, the sale of the property in a

SARFAESI auction is one of the most transperant methods by

which the property can be sold. It was, inter alia, observed

that, in fact, the SARFAESI Act, 2002 puts strict rules into

place on price discovery and ensures that the secured

creditor follows those rules scrupulously. In such a scenario,

without anything more being brought on record, it can hardly

be contended that the declared price in the sale certificate

issued under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not the

correct market value. Support was sought to be drawn from

the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ASL Vyapar

(supra).

31. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, the contention

of the respondent that, the consideration at which the

subject property was sold in an auction conducted by the

Recovery Officer, towards the satisfaction of the recovery

certificate, does not represent the true market value of the

subject property, cannot be countenanced. The material on

record indicates that the Recovery Officer had initially

published a sale proclamation. The property was offered to be

-WP12021-2025.DOC

sold by e-auction. Secondly, property was to be sold on "as is

where is" and "as is what is basis". Thirdly, the reserve price

was indicated. It would be contextually relevant to note that

under the provisions of Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest

(Enforcement) Rule, 2002 before effecting the sale of

immovable property, the Authorized Officer is enjoined to

obtain the valuation of the property from a approved valuer

and fix the reserve price of the property. The Authorized

Officer is empowered to sale the secured asset by obtaining

quotations, inviting tenders, by private treaty and by holding

public auction including through e-auction mode. In the

case at hand, the Recovery Officer has resorted to the sale of

the property by holding public auction through online

electronic bidding.

32. As the property was sold in a public auction through

online bidding and the bid of the petitioner, which matched

the reserve price, was accepted, it would not be permissible

for the Authorities under the Stamp Act, 1958 to contend

that the market value of the property would be determined in

accordance with the Rule 4(6) and not on the basis of the

consideration so fetched in the public auction.

-WP12021-2025.DOC

33. The upshot of the aforesaid consideration is that, the

procedure of sale adopted by the Recovery Officer to sell the

subject property towards satisfaction of the recovery

certificate issued by DRT, was conducive for discovery of the

fair market value of the property. Therefore, the impugned

order determining the stamp-duty on the basis of the market

value, as determined by the Collector of Stamps, and not on

the basis of the consideration at which the subject property

was purchased, cannot be legally sustained. The petition,

therefore, deserves to be allowed.

34. Hence, the following order:

:ORDER:

(i)       The petition stands allowed.

(ii)      The impugned order stands quashed and set aside.

(iii)     The respondent is directed to adjudicate the stamp-

duty on the sale certificate on the basis of the sale consideration of Rs.2,01,31,000/-.

(iv) Necessary order for the adjudication of the stamp-duty be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

(v) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

(vi)      No costs.

                                                    [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]