Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs S P Gayathri on 28 September, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.618 OF 2022 (GM-ST/RN)
IN
W.P. NO.40069 OF 2013 (GM-ST/RN)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS
8TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN
K G ROAD, BANGALORE 560009.
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
SHIVAJINAGAR, KANDAYA BHAVAN
1ST FLOOR, K G ROAD
BANGALORE 560001.
4. THE SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR
BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560043.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA)
2
AND:
1. S.P. GAYATHRI
W/O LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
2. SRI. D.T. SRIKANTH
S/O LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
3. SRI. D.T. ARAVIND
S/O LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
4. SRI. D.T. AVINASH
S/O LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
5. SRI. D.T. RAJASHEKAR
S/O D.A. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT
NEAR VENUGOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE
DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD
K R PURAM, BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE 560036.
REP. BY THEIR REGISTERED
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
SRI. AMIT R JAIN
S/O SRI RIKABCHAND JAIN
AGED 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.401
PANCHASHEEL APARTMENTS
THIRD FLOOR, THIRD CROSS
GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. D.N. MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR C/R1-R5)
---
3
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
19/11/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WRIT PETITION NO.40069/2013 (GM-ST/RN) AND
CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL.
ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDERS/DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal arises out of an order dated 19.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by the respondents has been allowed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the owners of the land entered into an agreement to surrender a portion of the property in favour of BBMP, in order to enable them to obtain Transferable Development Rights. The owners thereafter, executed a Power of Attorney on 02.04.2012, in favour of one Amit R Jain. The 4 respondents thereafter approached the appellants for registration of the aforesaid Power of Attorney.
3. The appellants in view of Article 41(e) and 41(eb) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 collected a sum of Rs.3,52,180/- as well as registration charges of Rs.71,010/-. The respondents challenged the aforesaid action of the appellants in a writ petition, which was allowed by learned Single Judge by an order dated 19.11.2021 with a direction to refund the excess stamp duty with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Thereafter, beyond a period of eight weeks, interest was directed to be levied at the rate of 15% instead of 9%. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that there has to be an equal conveyance 5 by the owners in order to attract the applicability under Article 20(7) of the Act. It is further submitted that, Power of Attorney cannot be treated as actual conveyance.
5. We have considered the submission made on both sides and have perused the record. Transfer of Development Rights is covered under Article 20(7) of the Act, which reads as under:
"(7) Conveyance relating to Transferable Development Rights: 1% on the market value of the Transferable Development Rights equal to the market value of the corresponding portion of the property leading to such Transferable Rights, which is the subject matter of conveyance; or consideration for such conveyance whichever is higher."
6. The Power of Attorney in respect of Transferable Development Rights is covered under Article 20(7) of the Act and therefore, Article 41(e) of 6 the Act could not have been invoked to recover the stamp duty. The learned Single Judge has therefore, rightly directed the appellants to refund the excess stamp duty. However, the rate of interest at the rate of 9% is on the higher side and the same is modified to 6%. It is further directed that beyond a period of eight weeks, the interest shall be payable at the rate of 9%.
To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SS