M/S Balaji Land Developers Jabalpur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66739
1 WP-16267-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 16267 of 2020
M/S BALAJI LAND DEVELOPERS JABALPUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India while praying for following reliefs:
"i. Summon the entire relevant record from the possession of the
court below;
ii. Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 08.06.2016
(P/1), demand Notice dated 23.12.2016 (P/10) and the order of the
Board of Revenue dated 06.06.2018 (P/3).
iii. Quash all the proceedings from the Stage of Show Cause and
direct the Respondents to refund any deposited amount.
iv. Award cost of the litigation in favor of the Petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-company entered into a
registered Development Agreement dated 26.02.2014 for development of 4
hectares of land situated at Jabalpur. The Stamp duty was paid on the
estimated development cost of Rs.1.50 crores, which was subsequently
confirmed by the Executive Engineer, M.P. Housing and Urban
Development Board, and development permission was granted on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:46:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66739
2 WP-16267-2020
11.07.2014. Subsequently, pursuant to an audit objection, the Collector of

Stamps, vide order dated 08.06.2016, assessed the development cost at
Rs.5.52 crores and raised a demand of approximately Rs.7.25 lakhs towards
deficit stamp duty. Thereafter, the District Registrar issued a demand notice
dated 23.12.2016 to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order and
demand, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 56(4) of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899. The said revision was dismissed by the Board of Revenue
vide order dated 06.06.2018. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that once the
stamp duty on the basis of development cost mentioned in the development
agreement was paid, there is no occasion with the Collector of Stamps to
assess the stamp duty on the basis of the development cost which is charged
by other public undertakings like M.P. Housing Board or the Development
Authorities. Undisputedly, the stamp duty at the time of execution of the
agreement to the extent of 1% of the development cost was paid by the
present petitioner and on the date of execution of development agreement,
there was no alienation of the property in favour of a third party. As per the
relevant clause which is mentioned in the impugned order, the petitioner,
being the developer, was entitled to alienate 45% of the land and only in the
event of alienation, the stamp duty was paid to the government. At the stage
of execution of development agreement, there was no alienation of property
and hence, the assessment of stamp duty on the basis of market value of the
property was an exercise which was wholly unwarranted. The Collector of
Stamps, while placing reliance on a communication dated 11.11.2013 which
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:46:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66739
3 WP-16267-2020
was sent by M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board, by which

the Collector of Stamps was intimated that the M.P. Housing Board charges
Rs.1,381/- per square meter for development of the land and, while treating
the said fixation of cost by the M.P. Housing Board to be final, the Collector
of Stamps has passed the impugned order.
4. It is further contended by the counsel that the Collector of Stamps
has even ventured upon to assess the market value of the property and, the
assessment regarding market value of the property by the Collector of
Stamps is based on the valuation regarding the development cost. In the
opinion of the Collector, the total land i.e. 40,000 square meters, upon its
multiplication with Rs.1381/- per square meter, the total market value of the
land was Rs.5,52,40,000/-. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the
objection which is at page number 18 of the writ petition clearly reflects that
there are no clear-cut guidelines by the State regarding charging of stamp
duties on development agreements and the authority has only referred to the
course which is adopted by the M.P. Housing Board. It is also contended by
the counsel that the order of Collector of Stamps is based on an audit
objection and the audit authority ought to have appreciated that there cannot
be imposition of stamp duties on the basis of the market value of the land
when only a development agreement was being executed. Thus, in view of
the aforesaid, counsel submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer
and submitted that the Collector of Stamps has rightly passed the impugned
order. It is contended by the counsel that the development cost since was not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:46:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66739
4 WP-16267-2020
detailed in the development agreement by the present petitioner, and there

was an attempt to not to pay adequate stamp duty; resultantly, upon audit it
was rightly noticed that there was evasion from payment of stamp duty and
accordingly, the Collector of Stamps has rightly passed the impugned order.
Hence, in view of the aforesaid, it is contended that the present petition
deserves to be dismissed.
6. No other point is argued or pressed by the parties.
7. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the
record.
8. A perusal of the record reflects that a development agreement which
is executed between the petitioner and the owner of land has in fact ensued in
the passing of the impugned order by the Collector of Stamps. According to
the petitioner, as per the development cost as mentioned in the development
agreement, stamp duty at the rate of 1% was paid by the present petitioner.
The said stamp duty was proper. Considering the development cost
mentioned in the agreement, there was no other method or criteria which was
required to be followed for the purposes of the calculation of the stamp duty.
It is also undisputed that after payment of stamp duty by the present
petitioner, subsequently, there was an objection by the audit. The factum of
said objection finds mention in opening two paragraphs of the impugned
order and according to the objection, as it was a joint venture and was a
development agreement, in the absence of a settled rate for the purposes of
assessment of development cost, the norms which were prevalent in the M.P.
Housing Board or the Municipal Corporation, were required to be considered
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:46:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66739
5 WP-16267-2020
as a guiding factor. The Collector accordingly proceeded to pass the

impugned order on the basis of a communication dated 11.11.2013 which
was sent by the M.P. Housing Board.
9. If the impugned order is perused carefully, it would reveal that the
Collector of Stamps was persuaded by the relevant clause of the
development agreement whereby the developer was given right to alienate
45% of the land and the remaining 55% of the land was to be alienated by
the actual owner of the land. Therefore, the said segregation of the rights by
the parties was taken note of by the Collector of Stamps and according to the
Collector, since the right to alienate the property was being accrued in favor
of the present petitioner, therefore, considering the market value of the land,
the imposition of stamp duty was required. The said findings of the Collector
are precisely not based on any material. According to the Collector of
Stamps, as per communication dated 11.11.2013 sent by M.P. Housing
Board, the Board was charging Rs.1381/- per square meter towards
development cost and according to the Collector of Stamps, the said rate was
proper and accordingly, the petitioner was also required to be charged with
the stamp duty on the said rate only. However, the Collector of Stamps,
while placing reliance on the said communication of the M.P. Housing
Board, concluded in the second and last third paragraphs of the impugned
order dated 08.06.2016 contained in Annexure P/1 as under:
"
उपरो  त य से प है क आ डट दल ारा बना कसी त यामक
3800/-
आधार पर कुल रकवे के आधे रकव " को #लाटेबल ऐ %रया मानकर

&.व.मी. क ( दर से गणना कर जो क (मत आई उसे वकास -यय मानने

म " भूल क ( है। आ डट ारा आ 1ेपत वकास अनुबंध प 4 म " वकास क (

दर का आधार गृह िनमा 7ण म 8डल से &ा9 कॉलोनी वकास दर को बताया
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:46:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66739
6 WP-16267-2020
,
गया है जब क म. &. गृह िनमा 7ण एवं अधोसंरचना वकास म 8डल
138:08
जबलपुर से &ा9 प 4 म " वकास क ( दर लाख >पये &.हे. अथा 7त
1381
&.व.मी. अं कत है जो क आ डट ारा अं कत दर से िभ @न है।
-
प है क एक ह A ईकाई ारा दो िभ @न िभ @न वकास दर बताया जाना

संभव नह Aं है। ऐसी Bथित म " वकिसत क ( जा रह A भूिम का &ाCकिलत

-यय म. &. गृह िनमा 7ण एवं अधोसंरचना वकास म 8डल जबलपुर ारा

द A गई जानकार A के आधार पर िनकाला जाना उिचत होगा। तदानुसार
:-
वकास -यय क ( गणना िन Dनानुसार है
4.00 40,000 X 1381 = ₹ 5,52,40,000/-
हे. अथा 7त व.मी. &.व.मी.

अतः उपरो  त य एवं प %रथितय के प %र&ेFय म " &Gाधीन िलखत म "
₹ 5,52,40,000/-
वकासकता7 को &ा9 होने वाले भाग का बाजार मू Hय
, ₹ 5,52,400/-
अवधा %रत कया जाता है Bजस पर मु Iांक एवं पंजीयन
₹ 4,42,095/- , ₹ 1,50,000/-
शु Hक &भाय7 है Bजसम" से का मु Iांक एवं
₹ 1,20,180/- ,
पजीयन शु Hक पंजीयन के समय चुकाया जा चुका है अतः
₹ 7,02,400/- ₹ 3,21,915/-
कमी मु Iांक शु Hक एवं पंजीयन शु Hक तथा
₹ 685/- ₹ 7,25,000/- (
शा Bत इस &कार कुल अंकन सात लाख प Lचीस
) 30 "0030
हजार >पये मा 4 आदेश पा %रत दनांक से दवस के अदंर शीष 7
"
मु Iांक एवं पंजीकरण म " चालान से कोषालय म " जमा करावे। िनयत
-
समयाविध म " कमी शु Hक जमा न कराये जाने पर म. &. भू राज व
- ,
सं हता के &ावधान के तहत् भू राज व क ( भांित वसूला जावेगा त
Oुसार
"
आदेश पा %रत । प 1कार को सूिचत हो।

10. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly reveal that according to the
Collector of Stamps, the market value of the property was Rs.5,52,40,000/-
. It was not a case where the market value of the property was in dispute, nor
was a debatable issue before the Collector of Stamps. On the contrary, the
Collector of Stamps was to ascertain the rate at which stamp duty was
chargeable on the Development Agreement. The Collector of Stamps thus, in
the case in hand deviated from the issue and, himself ventured upon to assess
the market value of the property in question to be Rs.5,52,40,000/-. Even, the
communication dated 11.11.2013 sent by M.P. Housing Board does not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:46:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66739
7 WP-16267-2020
contain any whisper of assessment of market value of a land. On the

contrary, the said communication was only confined to the rate of
development cost, which is charged by the M.P. Housing Board. Therefore,
the findings so arrived at by the Collector of Stamps in the operative
paragraphs of the impugned order, in the considered view of this Court, are
based on conjectures and are apparently hypothetical.
11. The Collector of Stamps was required to appreciate that as per the
development agreement, 45% of land was to be alienated by the present
petitioner and, the said incidence of alienation had to take place subsequent
to the execution of development agreement. Charging of stamp duty on the
basis of formula as mentioned in the operating paragraph of the impugned
order in fact amounts to double jeopardy. (plz see Shyamsundar Radheshyam
Agrawal & Anr. v. Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC
730)
12. If the stamp duty as assessed in the impugned order, is charged on
the basis of the market value as assessed in the impugned order by the
Collector of Stamps, the subsequent charging of stamp duty when the 45%
of land would be alienated by the present petitioner, would be an incident of
dual liability regarding the statutory dues and if, the stamp duties in regard to
the same land by the same person is recovered twice, it would be a case of
unjust enrichment as well.
13. The Apex Court in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2011) 8 SCC 161 in
paragraphs 158, 159 and 160 has held as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:46:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66739
8 WP-16267-2020


"158. While Section 3 (unjust enrichment) reads as under:

“The phrase ‘unjust enrichment’ is used in law to
characterise the result or effect of a failure to make
restitution of, or for, property or benefits received under
such circumstances as to give rise to a legal or equitable
obligation to account therefor. It is a general principle,
underlying various legal doctrines and remedies, that
one person should not be permitted unjustly to enrich
himself at the expense of another, but should be
required to make restitution of or for property or
benefits received, retained or appropriated, where it is
just and equitable that such restitution be made, and
where such action involves no violation or frustration of
law or opposition to public policy, either directly or
indirectly.”
159. Unjust enrichment is basic to the subject of restitution, and is
indeed approached as a fundamental principle thereof. They are
usually linked together, and restitution is frequently based upon
the theory of unjust enrichment. However, although unjust
enrichment is often referred to or regarded as a ground for
restitution, it is perhaps more accurate to regard it as a
prerequisite, for usually there can be no restitution without unjust
enrichment. It is defined as the unjust retention of a benefit to the
loss of another or the retention of money or property of another
against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good
conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and
he is unjustly enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust.
Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains
money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another.
160. While the term “restitution” was considered by the Supreme
Court in South Eastern Coalfields [South Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. v. State of M.P., (2003) 8 SCC 648] and other cases
excerpted later, the term “unjust enrichment” came to be
considered in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE &
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:46:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66739
9 WP-16267-2020
Customs [(2005) 3 SCC 738] . This Court said: ( Sahakari Khand
case [(2005) 3 SCC 738] , SCC p. 748, para 31)

“31. … ‘unjust enrichment’ means retention of a benefit
by a person that is unjust or inequitable. ‘Unjust
enrichment’ occurs when a person retains money or
benefits which in justice, equity and good conscience,
belong to someone else.”
(emphasis supplied)

14. The order of Collector of Stamps, since based on the assessment of
stamp duties on the basis of the valuation of the land qua a development
agreement, the subsequent collection of stamp duties at the time of alienation
of 45% of the land, would unjust enrich the State authority, and therefore, the
affected parties cannot be saddled with the burden to pay the same nature of
duties twice in regard to only one transaction pertaining to alienation of
property inasmuch as the other transaction is not a transaction of alienation
of the property. On the contrary, it's an agreement pertaining to the
development of land.
15. The development of a piece of land has no nexus with the
valuation or market value of the land. The location of the land, in the
absence of any specific guidelines or executive instructions issued by the
State, cannot be treated as a guiding factor for the purpose of computation or
assessment of development cost. In the present case, it is undisputed that
there are no specific circulars, executive instructions or guidelines issued by
the State regarding the assessment of the rate of development cost.
Therefore, the exercise undertaken by the Collector of Stamps in passing the
impugned order was not based upon any prevailing statutory or executive
guidelines. Rather, the Collector of Stamps was persuaded by the norms
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:46:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66739
10 WP-16267-2020
adopted by the M.P. Housing Board and treated the same as the guiding

factor for determining the development cost.
16. Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned
order passed by the Collector of Stamps dated 08.06.2016 contained in
Annexure P/1, being nullity, stands quashed. It is made clear that the
petitioner would not be liable to pay stamp duty on the development
agreement barring the duty already paid by the petitioner at the time of
execution of the development agreement.
17. With the aforesaid, the present Writ Petition stands allowed to the
extent indicated hereinabove.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:46:52