[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1255
1 WP-21697-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 21697 of 2025
DEEPAK KOL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gambhir S. Dikhit - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
challenging the notice dated 21/05/2025 issued by respondent No.4/
Tehsildar Barela, Tehsil Barela, District Jabalpur.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner has filed an application
dated 07/03/2025 under Section 110 of MPLRC before Tehsildar Barela
which was registered as Revenue Case No.0276-B-121-24-25. Along with
said application, he has also annexed copy of judgment and decree dated
14/12/2024 passed by 17th Civil Judge Senior Division, Jabalpur. The said
mutation application is still pending consideration. Respondent No.4/
Tehsildar has issued a letter dated 21/05/2025 to respondent No.3 for taking
stamp duty from the petitioner. On 14/01/2020, the Registrar has taken the
stamp duty on the said land having Registration No.MP182542020A1033736
and Registration date 14/01/2020. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has obtained a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1255
2 WP-21697-2025
compromise decree from the concerning Civil Court in Civil Suit No.RCSA-
1273/2024. The decree is to the following effect:-
"It is ordered and decreed that वाद गण ारा तुत
आवेदन प अंतगत आदे श 23 िनयम 3 सीपीसी वीकार
कया गया है और िन निल खत आ ि पा रत क जाती है -
1- उभयप ारा संयु प से ह ता रत, िल खत
समझौतानामा / अनुबंध प दनांक 12.12.2024 म जो भी
समझते के शत आपसी सहमित के आधार पर कं डका क. 1
से लेकर 10 एवं आपसी सहमित के आधार पर समझौते क
शत . 1 से लेकर 7 िलखी गयी है , उसके आधार पर
कायवाह करगे और उन शत का अनुपालन करगे।
2- उभयप के म य हुये राजीनामा के आधार पर तुत
समझौतानामा/अनुबंध प दनांक 12.12.2024 आ ि का
भाग रहे गा।
3- वाद गण व ितवाद गण अपना-अपना वाद यय वयं
वहन करगे।"
4 . It is submitted that similar issue came up consideration before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh and Another i n Civil Appeal No.14808/2024 , wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide judgment dated 20/12/2024 has held as under:-
"13. In respect of the issue relating to payment of stamp
duty for 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1255
3 WP-21697-2025
(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
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1255
4 WP-21697-2025
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.
14. In the ultimate analysis, we find that the impugned
order passed by the High Court, upholding the orders of
the authorities below, has no legs to stand and is hence,
set aside. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed and
the authority concerned shall make mutation of the
revenue records in respect of the subject land in favour
of the appellant. There is no order as to costs."
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh (supra), therefore the impugned notice/
letter issued by Tehsildar is per se illegal.
6 . After going through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mukesh (supra) and looking to the facts of the case in
hand, learned counsel appearing for the State fairly submits that the facts of
the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh (supra).
7 . Under these circumstances, the impugned notice/ letter is
unsustainable. It is hereby quashed. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh (supra) will apply to the case of the
present petitioner mutatis mutandis.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1255
5 WP-21697-2025
8. Respondent No.4/ Tehsildar Barela, District Jabalpur is directed to
consider the application for mutation in accordance with law and pass an
order within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
9. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. No
order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
