Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tarana Developers Llp Through Mr Amit ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 January, 2026
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3110
1 WP-49015-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 30 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 49015 of 2025
TARANA DEVELOPERS LLP THROUGH MR AMIT CHOPRA AND
OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pritam Raman Giriya (through video conferencing), learned counsel
for the petitioners.
Smt. Bhagyashree Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Collector of Stamps, District Ujjain under the provisions of Section 48 (b) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
2. Admittedly against the impugned order the petitioners have a remedy of preferring an appeal/revision before the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act itself. Though it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing in the matter and the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice but from a perusal of the impugned order it is observed that notices of the proceedings were served upon the petitioners and they had appeared therein. From the order-sheets filed by the petitioners themselves it is seen that they had been appearing in the proceedings but since they did not file any reply their right Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 31-01-2026 15:11:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3110 2 WP-49015-2025 to file the reply was closed. Whether closing of such right was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case would be a matter to be considered by the appropriate authority. However it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed in gross-violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. Though it has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that wrong provisions have been applied by the Collector of Stamps while passing the impugned order which is unreasoned and incorrect order but all these issues can very well be raised by the petitioners before the appellate/revisional authority. These are all issues on merits of the case and are not jurisdictional issues. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the same is a detailed and a speaking order. Reasons have been given therein and merely because the petitioners are of the opinion that wrong Article of Stamp Act has been applied or that the provisions have not been construed appropriately it would not render the order without jurisdiction. Since various disputed questions of facts are involved in the matter they would be much better appreciated by the appellate/revisional authority instead of by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
3. Thus in view of availability of alternate remedy to the petitioners as aforesaid this petition is declined to be entertained and is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy as available to them under the law.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 31-01-2026 15:11:00