Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramod Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:768
1 WP-15471-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15471 of 2023
PRAMOD KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yash Soni - Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State.
ORDER
Petitioner's grievance is that petitioner had entered into a compromise
and obtained a compromise decree vis-a-vis private respondents No.4 and 5.
On the basis of the said compromise decree, he had moved to the Nazul
officer, Chhindwara for mutation of his name in relation to the suit property.
Nazul officer had moved to the Collector of stamps and District Registrar,
Chhindwara, asking him to assess the quantum of stamp duty.
It is submitted that in view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mukesh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another
(Civil Appeal No.14808 of 2024, arising out of SLP (C) No.4293 of 2021)
paragraph 13 of which is specifically referred to by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, there is no need for payment of stamp duty in a matter of
compromise decree.
Paragraph 13 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"13. In respect of the issue relating to payment of stamp duty for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:768
2 WP-15471-2023
mutation of the subject land, it is the specific plea of the appellant
that "consent decrees" / "decrees" are not chargeable with "stamp
duty" under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as applicable to the State
of Madhya Pradesh. Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
provides the instruments which are chargeable with duty and the
same reads as under:
"3. Instrument chargeable with duty - Subject to the provision of
this Act and the exemptions contained is Schedule I, the following
instrument shall be chargeable with duty of the amount indicated
in the schedule as the proper duty therefore, respectively, that is to
say-
(a) Every instrument mentioned in that schedule which,
not having been previously executed by any person, is
executed in India on or after the first day of July 1899;
(b) Every bill of exchange payable otherwise than on
demand or promissory note drawn or made out of on or
after that day and accepted or paid, or presented for
acceptance or payment, or endorsed, transferred or
otherwise negotiable in India; and
(c) every instrument (other than a bill of exchange or
promissory note) mentioned in that schedule, which not
having been previously executed by any property
situate, or to any matter or thing done, or to be done, in
India and is received in India:
Provided that, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,
and notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), clause (b),
or clause (c) of this section or in Schedule I, the amount indicated
in schedule I-A to this Act shall, subject to the exemptions
contained in that Schedule, be the duty chargeable on the
instruments mentioned in clauses (aa) and (bb) of this proviso, as
the proper duty thereof, respectively, -
(aa) every instrument, mentioned in schedule I-A as
chargeable with duty under that schedule, which not
having been previously executed by any person, is
executed in Madhya Pradesh on or after the
commencement of the Central Provinces and Berar
Indian stamp (Amendment) Act, 1939; and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:768
3 WP-15471-2023
(bb) every instrument mentioned in Schedule I-A as
chargeable with duty under that schedule, which not
having been previously executed by any person, is
executed out of Madhya Pradesh on or after the
commencement of the Central Provinces and Berar
Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1939 and relates to
any property situated or to any matter or thing done or
to be done, in Madhya Pradesh and is received in
Madhya Pradesh:
Provided further that no duty shall be chargeable in respect of- (1)
any instrument executed by, or on behalf of, or in favour of, the
Government in cases where, but for this exemption, the
Government would be liable to pay the duty chargeable in respect
of such instrument; (2) any instrument for the sale, transfer or
other disposition, either absolutely, or by way of mortgage or
otherwise, of any ship or vessel, or any part, interest, share or
property of or in any ship or vessel registered under the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1894 or under Act 19 of 1838, or the Indian
Registration of Ships Act, 1841 as amended by subsequent Acts."
From the above, it is apparent that stamp duty is not chargeable on
an order/decree of the Court as the same do not fall within the
documents mentioned in Schedule I or I-A read with Section 3 of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Though the Collector of Stamps
determined the stamp duty for the subject land as per Article 22 of
Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which states about
conveyance, in this case, we have already held that the
compromise decree does not fall under the instruments mentioned
in the Schedule and that it only asserts the pre-existing rights.
Therefore, in the facts of the case, the consent decree will not
operate as conveyance as no right is transferred and the same does
not require any payment of stamp duty. Since the appellant has
only asserted the pre-existing right and no new right was created
through the consent decree, the document pertaining to mutation
of the subject land is not liable for stamp duty."
This proposition is not disputed by Shri Yash Soni, learned Deputy
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:768
4 WP-15471-2023
Advocate General appearing for the State.
In view of such facts, impugned direction to assess the quantum of
stamp duty on a compromise decree is set aside. Nazul officer is directed to
carry out mutation in terms of the compromise decree.
In above terms, this writ petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
