### Collaboration Agreement for Redevelopment Lacking Intent to Transfer Title Does Not Attract Stamp Duty under Section 53-A TP Act

The Petitioner (a builder) entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 17.05.2016 with co-owners of a property in South Extension, New Delhi.

The Petitioner undertook to reconstruct the property at his own cost in exchange for a 22.5% undivided land share and ownership of specific floors.

Following a complaint by a neighbor, the Collector of Stamps impounded the Agreement and, via an order dated 02.07.2021 ("Impugned Order"), levied stamp duty and penalty totaling ₹59,66,052/-.

The Collector classified the Agreement as a contract in the nature of "part performance" under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (TP Act), chargeable as an agreement to sell under Article 23A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

During the pendency of the writ, the parties subsequently executed and registered a formal Sale Deed for the Petitioner’s share, paying the requisite stamp duty.

1. Whether a Collaboration Agreement for redevelopment, where possession is given for construction purposes, qualifies as a contract for transfer under Section 53-A of the TP Act and is thus chargeable under Article 23A of the Stamp Act.

2. Whether the Collector has the jurisdiction to impound an instrument and impose a penalty when the foundational requirements of a "contract to transfer for consideration" are not met.

Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which defines "part performance" requiring a contract to transfer immovable property for consideration.

The court relied on Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi v. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi, which established six mandatory conditions for Section 53-A.

Article 23A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act (Delhi Amendment), which levies duty on contracts in the nature of part performance.

The court cited Faqir Chand Gulati v. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. regarding the nature of collaboration agreements as "service contracts" rather than "sale contracts".

Suhas Damodar Sathe v. State of Maharashtra regarding the tests to distinguish development agreements from conveyances.

Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh to justify exercising writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternative remedy due to a lack of jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that for Article 23A of the Stamp Act to apply, the instrument must satisfy all elements of Section 53-A of the TP Act, primarily the existence of a "contract to transfer for consideration".

The Petitioner was a "service provider" reconstructing the building, and the possession granted was co-extensive with construction obligations, not a transfer of proprietary interest.

The Court found the Collector’s inquiry flawed as it inferred a transfer solely from the delivery of possession.

Applying the "test of transfer of title," the Court noted that the Agreement contemplated the execution of separate conveyance deeds in the future, proving that title did not pass via the Collaboration Agreement itself.

The subsequent registration of a formal Sale Deed further demonstrated that the parties did not intend the Collaboration Agreement to act as a conveyance.

Consequently, the Agreement did not fall under Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act or Article 23A of the Stamp Act.

The Court quashed the Impugned Order dated 02.07.2021, setting aside the demand for ₹59,66,052/- for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent was directed to release the original Collaboration Agreement to the Petitioner forthwith.

The Court clarified that since the document was not "chargeable with duty" under the specified article, the Collector’s power to impound under Section 33 was void.