Uttarakhand High Court
Hon'Ble Pankaj Purohit vs Dr. Haroon Mohammad on 30 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
`
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.2761 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Anil K. Dabral, Additional C.S.C. with Mr.
Sudhir Nainwal, S.C. for the State.
3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has put
to challenge the order dated 15.04.2025, passed by the
learned Collector Stamp/Additional District Magistrate
(Finance and Revenue), Dehradun, in Case No.221 of
2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Dr. Haroon Mohammad,
under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1889,
whereby the penalty/fine was imposed and a penal
interest was imposed upon the petitioner for paying the
deficit stamp duty of his commercial establishment
purchased by him vide registered sale deed from one
Rajeev Kalya on 24.12.2021; as well as judgment and
order dated 27.08.2025, passed by learned Chief
Controller Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue,
Dehradun in Stamp Revision No.4/2024-25, Dr Haroon
Mohammad Vs. State of Uttarakhand¸ whereby the revision
petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the
order passed by learned Collector Stamp/Additional
District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Dehradun was
affirmed.
4. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner has
purchased a commercial establishment in Rishikesh from
one Rajeev Kalya, by way of a registered sale deed dated
24.12.2021. The petitioner has paid the stamp duty on
the super area of the commercial establishment as per the
applicable circle rates of the area, but the respondent-
Authorities found fault with the stamp duty paid by the
petitioner only on the super area saying that the stamp
duty should be paid for the land over which the
commercial establishment is constructed as well as that
of the construction and the value of the mumty is to be
separately valued.
5. The approach of the respondent-Authorities prima
facie appears to be faulty for the reason that the
instructions were called from the State and on the basis of
instruction it is contended by learned State counsel that
in view of the circle rates of Rishikesh, the stamp duty
has been deficitly paid by the petitioner which is in
violation of the general direction of the Circle Rate as
contained in page no.87 of the writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the State has drawn attention of
this Court to Clause (A)(2) to submit that in case of a shop
situated or a commercial establishment situated in a
building, the stamp duty shall be chargeable on the basis
of super area per square meter which includes land.
7. But in the case in hand the land is also being
transferred along with construction therefore the stamp
duty shall be chargeable on the land as well as on the
construction. The Clause (A)(2) of the general direction
needs interpretation for which the counter affidavit is
required.
8. Learned counsel for the State may file counter
affidavit within four weeks.
9. List this case on 24.12.2025.
10. In the meantime, the effect and operation of the
order dated 15.04.2025 (annexure no.4), passed by
learned Collector Stamp/Additional District Magistrate
(Finance and Revenue), Dehradun, in Case No.221 of
2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Dr. Haroon Mohammad,
shall remain stayed.
11. Stay application (IA No.1 of 2025) stands disposed-
off.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
30.10.2025
SK
