They Revalued The Property At Rs 52 Crore. The Court Put It Back To Rs 12 Crore.
A deficit stamp duty demand of over Rs 2 crore turned on a valuation report prepared long after the Collector had already adjudicated. It has been quashed.
The Court held the market value could not be enhanced to Rs 52,61,54,916 on the basis of the valuation report of 6 December 2014. The Collector's valuation of Rs 12 crore had not been displaced by sufficient and reasoned material. The impugned order and the demand of Rs 2,03,07,750 as deficit stamp duty were quashed, and the original adjudication — Rs 12 crore, stamp duty Rs 60 lakh — was restored.
- An adjudication stands until it is displaced by sufficient and reasoned material, not by a later opinion.
- The deposit comes back, with any interest accrued, on verification by the Registry.
- Limitation was left open. The Court expressly did not decide the Section 53A question.
- Rs 60 lakh, not Rs 2.6 crore — the difference between the two valuations, in duty.
- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
- Citation
- Writ Petition No. 10725 of 2015
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 10725 of 2015
- Decided
- 31 August 2026
- Outcome
- Writ petition allowed; demand quashed and the Collector's adjudication restored
The two valuations
The Collector of Stamps had adjudicated the market value of the property at Rs 12 crore, and the stamp duty at Rs 60 lakh.
A valuation report dated 6 December 2014 put the market value at Rs 52,61,54,916. On that basis, an order of 15 September 2015 demanded Rs 2,03,07,750 as deficit stamp duty.
Why the higher figure did not stand
The market value for the purpose of the conveyance could not be enhanced to Rs 52,61,54,916 on the strength of that report.
The Collector's valuation of Rs 12 crore had not been displaced by sufficient and reasoned material, and the stamp duty remained payable on it as adjudicated.
The impugned order could not be sustained on merits. It, and the consequential demand, were quashed and set aside, and the original adjudication restored.
What follows
The petitioners are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in Court under the order of 27 October 2015, together with any interest accrued, on due verification by the Registry.
The question of limitation under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 was expressly kept open and not decided.
There was no order as to costs.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a later valuation report increase stamp duty already adjudicated?
Not by itself. The Court held the Collector's adjudication had not been displaced by sufficient and reasoned material.
Do I get back what I deposited in court?
Yes. The petitioners were permitted to withdraw the deposit with any accrued interest, on verification.
Contesting a deficit stamp duty demand
- Ask what displaced the original adjudication, and test whether that material is sufficient and reasoned.
- Date the valuation report against the adjudication; a later report is not automatically a better one.
- Where an amount has been deposited, ask for its release with interest in the same order.
- Keep the limitation point alive separately; the Court left Section 53A open here.
Source. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Writ Petition No. 10725 of 2015, decided 31 August 2026 by . This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Judicature at Bombay and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in