SMT RAJESHWARI W/O. MUTTANNA BIRAJ vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8375
WP No. 103262 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
R
TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 103262 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. MUTTANNA BIRAJ
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. PLOT NO.1614, SECTOR NO.8,
ANJANEY NAGAR ( M.M. EXTENSION)
TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI-590016.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.B. RAHUT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
BENGALURU-01.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI
TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTER
OF STAMPS BELAGAVI,
TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
BELAGAVI
TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS,
TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8375
WP No. 103262 of 2026
HC-KAR
6. THE CITY SURVERY OFFICER,
BELAGAVI,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION,
ENTRY MADE BY RESPONDENT NO.5 AND 6 DATED 17.04.2025 IN
EXTRACT OF CTS NO.6455 OF ANJANEY NAGAR SECTOR NO.8 M.M.
EXTENSION, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ALSO AGGRIEVED
BY THE NOTICE DATED 20.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.4 BEARING NO. RRC/CR-47/2024-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, AND THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 AND 6
MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ENTRY DATED
17.04.2025 IN EXTRACT OF CTS NO.6455 OF ANJANEY NAGAR
SECTOR NO.8 M.M. EXTENSION, BELAGAVI PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8375
WP No. 103262 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. The learned Additional Government Advocate, at
the outset, raised a preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the writ petition by contending that the
petitioner has an efficacious and alternative statutory
remedy by way of revision/appeal under the provisions of
the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act’) and
therefore, this Court ought not to exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
3. This Court is, however, not persuaded to accept
the said preliminary objection. The challenge in the
present writ petition goes to the very jurisdiction of the
authorities to initiate proceedings for recovery of alleged
deficit stamp duty after the expiry of the period prescribed
under the statute. The controversy does not merely relate
to the correctness of the quantification of stamp duty but
concerns the competence of the authority to initiate
proceedings after the statutory period of limitation. Where
an action is ex facie without jurisdiction and contrary to
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8375
WP No. 103262 of 2026
HC-KAR
the express mandate of the statute, the existence of an
alternative remedy cannot operate as an absolute bar to
the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
4. The impugned demand notice seeks to recover
alleged deficit stamp duty in respect of a sale deed
executed in favour of the petitioner’s vendor in the year
1993. The initiation of such proceedings is governed by
Section 46A(1) of the Act. Since the entire controversy
revolves around the scope and limitation prescribed under
the said provision, it is necessary to extract Section
46A(1) of the Act, which reads thus:
46A. Recovery of stamp duty not levied or
short levied.
(1) Where any instrument chargeable with
duty has not been duly stamped, the Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority or any other
officer authorized by the State Government
(hereinafter referred to as the authorized
officer) may, within five years from the date of
commencement of the Karnataka Stamp
(Amendment) Act, 1980 or the date on which
the duty became payable whichever is later,
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8375
WP No. 103262 of 2026
HC-KAR
serve notice on the person by whom the duty
was payable requiring him to show cause why
the proper duty or the amount required to
make up the same should not be collected
from him.
Provided that where the non-payment
was by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful
mis-statement or suppression of facts or
contravention of any of the provisions of this
Act or of the rules made thereunder with
intent to evade payment of duty, the
provisions of this sub-section shall have effect,
as if for the words “five years”, the words “ten
years” were substituted.
Provided further that nothing in this sub-
section shall apply to instruments executed
prior to the first day of April, 1972.
Explanation.— Where the service of a
notice under this sub-section is stayed by an
order of a Court, the period of such stay shall
be excluded in computing the aforesaid period
of five years or ten years, as the case may be.
5. A plain and meaningful reading of Section 46A(1)
of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the power
conferred upon the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority or
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8375
WP No. 103262 of 2026
HC-KAR
the authorised officer to recover deficit stamp duty is not
an unbridled power. The legislature has consciously
prescribed a definite period of limitation within which such
proceedings are required to be initiated. The statute
authorises issuance of notice only within five years from
the date on which the duty became payable. The extended
period of ten years is available only in cases where the
alleged non-payment of stamp duty is attributable to
fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of
material facts or deliberate contravention of the provisions
of the Act with an intention to evade payment of duty.
6. The limitation prescribed under Section 46A is,
therefore, not merely procedural but goes to the very root
of the jurisdiction of the authority. Once the statutory
period expires, the authority becomes functus officio
insofar as initiation of proceedings for recovery of deficit
stamp duty is concerned. Consequently, any notice issued
beyond the prescribed period is rendered wholly without
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8375
WP No. 103262 of 2026
HC-KAR
jurisdiction and liable to be interfered with in exercise of
writ jurisdiction.
7. In the present case, the material facts are not in
dispute. The petitioner’s vendor had acquired title to the
property under a registered sale deed dated 15.05.1993.
The impugned proceedings seeking recovery of alleged
deficit stamp duty have been initiated by issuance of the
demand notice dated 17.04.2025, nearly thirty-two years
after execution and registration of the sale deed.
8. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
respondents are entitled to invoke the proviso to Section
46A(1) of the Act by alleging fraud, collusion, wilful
misstatement or suppression of material facts, the
impugned proceedings would still remain hopelessly barred
by limitation. The proviso merely enlarges the period of
limitation from five years to ten years and does not confer
an unrestricted or perpetual power upon the authorities to
initiate recovery proceedings. In the present case, the sale
deed in question was executed and registered on
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8375
WP No. 103262 of 2026
HC-KAR
15.05.1993, whereas the impugned demand notice has
been issued only on 17.04.2025, nearly thirty-two years
thereafter. Thus, even reckoning the limitation from the
standpoint of the extended period of ten years
contemplated under the proviso, the impugned notice is
grossly beyond the statutory period prescribed under
Section 46A(1) of the Act. Consequently, irrespective of
whether the case falls under the main provision or the
proviso, the initiation of recovery proceedings is clearly
barred by limitation and is therefore ex facie without
jurisdiction. The impugned demand notice, having been
issued in complete disregard of the statutory limitation,
cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
9. What is more significant is that the petitioner is
not even the executant or beneficiary of the sale deed of
the year 1993. The petitioner is only a subsequent bona
fide purchaser, who has acquired the property much later
under a registered conveyance. The petitioner cannot now
be subjected to recovery proceedings in respect of an
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8375
WP No. 103262 of 2026
HC-KAR
alleged deficiency in stamp duty purportedly committed by
his vendor more than three decades ago. Permitting such
proceedings to continue would not only defeat the
legislative intent underlying Section 46A of the Act but
would also seriously undermine the certainty and sanctity
attached to registered transactions. A subsequent
purchaser, who has acquired title on the strength of
registered documents, cannot be indefinitely exposed to
proceedings arising out of alleged defects in transactions
concluded decades earlier.
10. Though this Court is conscious of the settled
principle that ordinarily a writ petition would not be
entertained when an effective alternative remedy is
available, such self-imposed restraint cannot be extended
to cases where the impugned action is patently without
jurisdiction or ex facie barred by limitation. The present
case squarely falls within the well-recognised exceptions
warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relegating the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8375
WP No. 103262 of 2026
HC-KAR
petitioner to avail the statutory remedy would serve no
useful purpose when the impugned proceedings are
demonstrably without jurisdiction and contrary to the
express provisions of Section 46A(1) of the Act.
Interference by this Court is therefore imperative to
prevent manifest injustice.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
satisfied that the impugned demand notice and the
consequential revenue entry are wholly unsustainable in
law and deserve to be quashed. For the foregoing reasons,
this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
allowed
(i) The writ petition is .
(ii) The impugned entry dated 17.04.2025 made
by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the extract of
CTS No.6455, situated at Anjaneya Nagar,
Sector No.8, M.M. Extension, Belagavi, and
the impugned demand notice dated
20.03.2025 issued by the fourth respondent
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8375
WP No. 103262 of 2026
HC-KAR
bearing No. RRC / CR-47 / 2024-25
(Annexure-D) are hereby quashed and set
aside .
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CKK
CT:GSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16