M/S. SATYAM CONSTRUCTION vs CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

2025:BHC-AS:37168 Megha 1_wp_241_2015_fc.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.241 OF 2015 M/s. Satyam Construction ...Petitioner V/s. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ors. ...Respondents ______________ Mr. Chaitanya Nikte with Mr. Prajit Sahane and Mr. Swapnil Sangle for the Petitioner. Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. GP with Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4-State. ______________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated: 3 SEPTEMBER 2025. Oral Judgment: 1) By this Petition, Petitioner challenges order dated 12 August 2014 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority rejecting Petitioner’s application for refund of stamp duty on the ground that the same does not fit into the ambit of Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (the Stamp Act). 2) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner entered into Development Agreement with one Shri Rajiv Ghule and others on 2 June 2011, which was registered in the office of Page No. 1 of 24 3 September 2025 Megha 1_wp_241_2015_fc.docx Sub-Registrar, Haveli No.6. Under the said agreement, development rights were granted in favour of the Petitioner in respect of land bearing Survey No.80 Hissa 2/1 admeasuring 01 Hectare 37 R at Village-Manjri Budruk, Taluka-Haveli, District- Pune. The Development Agreement was valued at Rs.10,05,45,000/- and the Petitioner paid stamp duty of Rs.20,10,900/- calculated @ 2% as per Article 25 (1-a)(A) Schedule I of the Stamp Act. The Petitioner however could not receive possession of the land in respect of which Development Agreement was executed and finally parties decided to cancel the transaction. Accordingly, Deed of Cancellation was executed and registered on 3 August 2011. The Petitioner made a