THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS vs. M/S ALYSSIA PROPERTY PARTNERS LLP

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB
WA No. 2145 of 2025


HC-KAR




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT APPEAL NO. 2145 OF 2025 (GM-ST/RN)


BETWEEN:

1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS
SHIVAJINAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT
TH
4 FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS
NO.122/2, INFANTRY ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001

2. THE SUB-REGISTRAR
SHIVAJINAGAR
BANGALORE
…APPELLANTS









(BY SRI K S HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

Digitally
signed by K
P SWETHA
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
AND:

1. M/S ALYSSIA PROPERTY PARTNERS LLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM
INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.41
KORAMANGALA, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
TH TH
4 B CROSS, 5 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560095
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER
MR. SANJEEV JOSHI
…RESPONDENT




- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB
WA No. 2145 of 2025


HC-KAR


THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1964 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
08.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.53061/2016 (GM-ST/RN) AND THEREBY
CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2016 PASSED BY THE
APPELLANT, BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL AMD ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning the
order dated 08.07.2025 [ impugned order ] passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.53061/2016 [GM-ST/RN].

2. The respondent had filed the said petition impugning an
order dated 22.08.2016 passed by appellant No.1 [ District
Registrar ] calling upon the respondent to pay the deficient stamp
`
duty and registration fees amounting to 1,13,44,081/- and
` 20,25,732/- (totalling ` 1,33,69,813/- ) within a period of ninety
days from the date of the said order.



- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB
WA No. 2145 of 2025


HC-KAR


3. The District Registrar passed the said order in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 46A of the Karnataka Stamp Act,
1957 [ the Act ].

4. The District Registrar had determined that the conveyance
deed in respect of the commercial property situated at Municipal
No.23 (Old No.28), Richmond Road, Bengaluru City, Richmond
Town, measuring an area of 18,137 square feet, was inadequately
stamped.

5. Kolte Patil Developers Limited had executed the sale deed
dated 31.10.2014 for the subject property in favour of the
respondent for a consideration of ` 36,00,00,000 (Rupees Thirty Six
Crores). The same was registered on 31.10.2014, and the stamp
duty of ` 2,01,60,020/-, as well as the registration fees of
` 36,00,000/-, were paid in respect of the said conveyance deed.

6. It is material to note that the commercial property comprises
a basement measuring 10,270 square feet, a ground floor
measuring 8,380 square feet, a mezzanine floor measuring 2,806
square feet, a first floor measuring 9,852 square feet, a second
floor measuring 10,124 square feet, a third floor measuring 10,124


- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB
WA No. 2145 of 2025


HC-KAR


square feet, and a terrace measuring 909 square feet. The plot of
land measures 18,137 square feet, and the total area of the
building constructed thereon measures 52,465 square feet. The
said property was a commercial property.

7. Notwithstanding that the building had been conveyed for a
consideration of ` 36,00,00,000/- and the guideline value of the said
property was assessed at ` 35,25,92,600/-, the District Registrar
concluded that the market value of the subject property was higher
than the one assessed at the material time.

8. It is material to note the guideline value for the residential
`
property was 11,200/- per square feet. The said value was
required to be increased by 40% as the property in question was a
commercial land. Accordingly, the value of the plot of commercial
`
land was determined at 28,43,88,160/- (18,137 square feet x
` 15,680/-). The cost of construction was determined at ` 1,300/- per
square feet (52,465 square feet x ` 1,300/-).

9. Apparently, certain audit observations were made regarding
the method used to assess the guideline price. In view of the audit
observations, the District Registrar proceeded on the basis that the


- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB
WA No. 2145 of 2025


HC-KAR


areas of the separate floors were required to be determined at the
guidance value for built-up flats in a commercial complex as
against the land and building valued at the time of registration of
the conveyance deed. The base rate for a residential flat in a
complex was required to be increased by 30% to arrive at the
guidance value for a commercial flat. Accordingly, the District
Registrar determined the market value of the subject property at
` 56,25,73,228/- as under:

10. The principal question to be considered is whether the
District Registrar's decision to assess the market value of the


- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB
WA No. 2145 of 2025


HC-KAR


subject property as the sum of the values of the separate areas of
the complex is sustainable.

11. It is material to note that the entire subject property was sold
by the vendor (M/s.Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.) in favour of the
respondent under a single sale deed. The subject property as
conveyed by the sale deed dated 31.10.2014 is described as
under:
"SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the property known as "Alyssa",
bearing Municipal No.23, Old No.28, Richmond Road,
Richmond Town, Bangalore 560 025, having P-I-D No. 76-
19-23, measuring an extent of 18137 sq ft, alongwith the
commercial complex comprising of Basement having a built
up area of 10270 Sq ft (954.11 sq.m); Ground floor having a
built up area of 8360 Stq ft (778.56 sq.m); Mezzanine
having a built up area of 2806 Sq ft. (260.66 sq.m); First
Floor having a built up area of 9852 5q ft (915.26 sq.m):
Second Floor having a built up area of 10124 Sq ft (940.52
sq.m); Third Floor having built up area of 10124 Sq ft
(940.52 sq.m) and 'Terrace having a built up area of 909
Sq. ft (4.46 sq.m) and bound as follows:
East by : Property bearing No.23/2 & 24,
West by : Property bearing No.23/1 & 22,
North by : King Street Rustamji Apartment and
Father of Holy Cross and Private
Property,
South by : Richmond Road"

12. It is clear from the above that the respondent had purchased
the entire plot of land, including the commercial building


- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB
WA No. 2145 of 2025


HC-KAR


constructed thereon. The respondent had not purchased separate
commercial flats. Thus, the District Registrar's decision to reassess
the guidance value of the subject property by separately valuing
each floor on the basis of the commercial rates fixed for flats in the
complex is not sustainable. The assumption that the respondent
ex facie
had purchased separate flats is erroneous as the
conveyance deed is executed in respect to the entire plot of land
along with the commercial complex built thereon.

13. Article 20(1) of the Schedule to the Act specifies the stamp
duty payable in respect of conveyance as defined under clause (d)
of Section 2 of the Act as 5% of the market value of the property.
Given the tenor of the sale deed in question, Article 20(1) of the
Schedule to the Act is applicable.

14. In the present case, the District Registrar had rightly
determined the market value of the subject property on the basis of
the market value of the land and the cost of construction at the
material time. However, the District Registrar had sought to re-
assess the same on the assumption that the sale deed was in


- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB
WA No. 2145 of 2025


HC-KAR


respect of the property, which was covered under Article 20(2) of
the Schedule of the Act.

15. The relevant extracts of Article 20(1) and 20(2) of the
Schedule to the Act are set out below:

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB
WA No. 2145 of 2025


HC-KAR

16. Section 2(a) of the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of
the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer)
Act, 1972, defines a flat as under:
" Flat " means a separate and self-contained set of
premises used or intended to be used for
residence or office or show-room or shop or
godown (and includes a garage), the premises
forming part of a building"
17. In the present case, it would be clearly erroneous to describe
the conveyance deed as an instrument of conveyance pertaining to
a flat as defined under Section 2(a) of the Karnataka Ownership
Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale,
Management and Transfer) Act, 1972.

18. Plain reading of the said deed in question indicates that it is
not in respect of a separate and self-contained set of premises. It is
a singular building constructed on commercial land. Stamp duty is
payable on the instrument; thus, it is necessary to determine the
stamp duty in reference to the instrument. The instrument in
question (sale deed) is not an instrument that conveys separate


- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15512-DB
WA No. 2145 of 2025


HC-KAR


self-contained premises with a proportionate interest in land. In
terms of the sale deed, the entire plot of commercial land and the
building built thereon. Thus, it was not permissible for the District
Registrar to construe it as an instrument conveying separate self-
contained premises forming a part of the building.

19. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of
the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and setting aside
the order passed by the District Registrar re-assessing the stamp
duty as deficient on the basis that the sale deed was an instrument
conveying separate commercial flats to the respondent.

20. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE


Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KPS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12