P K MOHAMMED AHMED vs THE CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58869
WP No. 31690 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010644692024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 31690 OF 2024 (GM-ST/RN)

BETWEEN:

P K MOHAMMED AHMED
S/O. KUNJHALI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.7/73, HILL ROAD,
MADIKERI CITY, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.
…PETITIONER







(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER
CONTROL OFFICER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.

2. CHIEF REVENUE CONTROL OFFICER
AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND
COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS,
NO.720, SIMSHA, NEAR SANGAM CIRCLE,
48TH STREET, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 011

3. DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS,
NO.771, BRAHMINS ROAD, MADIKERI,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201




Digitally signed
by PAVITHRA B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58869
WP No. 31690 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010644692024



4. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DIVISION
MYSURU - 570 005.

5. SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR
MADIKERI,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE AND
SMT. LEELAKANTASWAMY C.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1
R3 - SERVED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2012 IN DRI NO. 04/2011-12
PASSED BY THE R-3 AT ANNX-A HAS LAPSED DUE TO NON-
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAME WITHIN THE STIPULATED
TIME ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
the order dated 27.06.2012 at Annexure-A, passed by
respondent No.3, assessing the market value of the land
measuring 50.47 acres for a sum of Rs.1,11,03,500/- and
calling upon the petitioner to pay the difference of stamp
duty of Rs.7,52,823/-.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58869
WP No. 31690 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010644692024


2. The facts pleaded by the petitioner in the writ
petition are that the petitioner and two other family
members, viz, Mr. M.A.Mohammed and Mr.M.A.Saleem
Ahmed have purchased 40 acres of land situated in
Sy.No.1/22 of Kopatti Village, Bagamandala Nadu,
Madikere Taluk, from Sri. P.C.Somaiah and his family
members. The schedule to the sale deed dated
06.11.1992, reads as follows:
“4/5th Undevided share in Redeemed Sagu
land bearing Sy.No.1/22 of 50.47 acres in
Kopatti Village, Baghmandala Nad, Madikeri
Taluk.”

3. Subsequently, one of the joint purchasers,
namely, Mr. M.A.Mohammed, has released his share of
1/3rd in the property purchased under the sale deed dated
06.11.1992 through the executing a release deed dated
25.08.2014 at Annexure-C. Another purchaser, Mr.
M.A.Saleem Ahmed has also given up his claim in respect
rd
of his 1/3 share in the property purchased through the
sale deed dated 06.11.1992, in a partition between the
petitioner and himself, registered on 28.09.2016.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58869
WP No. 31690 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010644692024


4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that, on 27.05.2011, the petitioner herein
intended to acquire the ownership over the remaining 10
acres of the land in very same survey number from the
other family members of Sri.P.C. Somaiah through a
release deed. When the release deed was presented for
registration before the Sub-Registrar, due to certain
confusion in assessment of the guidance value on the
release deed which has been executed by a third party,
who was not being a member of the family of the
petitioner, the document was referred for impounding
under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act through the
communication dated 27.08.2011.
5. In the said communication, the Senior Sub-
Registrar has calculated the guidance value and the stamp
duty payable on the release deed. Respondent
No.3/District Registrar, before passing orders on the
reference made by the Sub-Registrar, addressed a
communication to the Chief Controller i.e., the Chief
Revenue Controller and the Inspector of General of

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58869
WP No. 31690 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010644692024


Registration, who is respondent No.1 herein, seeking
clarification as to the manner in which the stamp Duty to
be collected in respect of the release deed. In response to
which, respondent No.1 issued a Memorandum dated
16.01.2012, directing respondent No.3/District Registrar
to register the proceedings under Section 45-A of the
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, and adjudicate the matter.
6. Pursuant to the said communication,
respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order on
27.06.2012, determining the guidance value and the
stamp duty payable. In the said order, respondent No. 3
determined the guidance value in respect of the entire
extent of 50.47 acres instead of the 10 acres which was
sought to be released under the release deed in question.
The said order is under challenge in the present writ
petition.
7. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the order at Annexure-A, passed by respondent

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58869
WP No. 31690 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010644692024


No.3, is erroneous and contrary to the records available
before him.
8. As noticed supra, the petitioner herein has
already acquired title in respect of 40 acres pursuant to
the sale deed, release deed and the deed of partition
referred supra. What is being now released by the other
members of the family of Mr. P. C. Somaiah in favour of
the petitioner is 10.47 acres. Therefore, the determination
of the guidance value and the assessment of stamp duty
and registration fee should be only in respect of the
property which is being transferred under the release deed
i.e., 10.47 acres out of the total extent of 50.47 acres.
However, respondent No.3 has erroneously considered the
guidance value in respect of the entire 50.47 acres and
called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,52,823/-.
Being the difference of stamp duty and registration fee.
9. In that view of the matter, the impugned order
at Annexure-A, insofar as it determines the guidance value
and stamp duty payable in respect of the entire extent of

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58869
WP No. 31690 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010644692024


50.47 acres, is erroneous, illegal and liable to be set aside.
The consideration of guidance value and stamp duty
should have been confined only insofar as 10.47 acres
which is the subject matter of the release deed in
question.
10. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that guidance value in respect of 10.47 acres,
which is the subject matter of the release deed, has
already been determined by the Sub-Registrar in terms of
the communication Annexure-E dated 27.08.2011 and the
stamp duty payable has also been determined in a sum of
Rs.1,49,160/-. Therefore, the liability of payment of
stamp duty is the same what the Sub-Registrar has
calculated at Annexure-E. Since the said amount was
required to be paid by the petitioner way back in the year
2011 and the same is being deposited now the petitioner
will have to pay reasonable interest on the said amount.
11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed .

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58869
WP No. 31690 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010644692024


12. The order dated 27.06.2012 at Annexure-A,
passed by respondent No.3, is quashed .
13. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.1,49,160/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from
27.08.2011, till the date of payment, to respondent No.5.
On such deposit, respondent No.5 shall release the release
deed dated 27.05.2011 within four weeks from the date of
deposit, subject to their being no other legal impediment
for the same.
14. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE






SMC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19