- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25022 WP No. 53061 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 53061 OF 2016 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN M/S ALYSSIA PROPERTY PARTNERS LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM, INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008, HAVING ITS REGISTEED OFFICE AT NO.41, KORAMANAGALA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, 4TH B CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER, MR.SANJEEV JOSHI. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIDHAR.G., ADVOCATE) AND 1. DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE. 2. SUB REGISTRAR SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE. …. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO. SJN/SNR/46-A/01/15-16 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25022 WP No. 53061 of 2016 DATED 22.08.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.07.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction in the nature of writ quashing the order bearing no.SJN/SNR/46-A/01/15-16 dated 22.08.2016 passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure-A) ii. Grant any other relief/s this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of the property known as ‘Alyssa’ bearing Municipal No.23, Old No.28, Richmond Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560025, measuring 18,137 sq.ft. along with a building consisting of a basement measuring 10,270 sq.ft. with car park, ground floor measuring 8380 sq.ft., mezzanine measuring 2806 sq.ft., and the first floor measuring 9852 sq.ft., second and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25022 WP No. 53061 of 2016 third floors measuring 10,124 sq.ft. and terrace measuring 909 sq.ft. 3. The said property was purchased by the petitioner from M/s.Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., under a Sale Deed dated 31-10-2014, which came to be registered as Document No.2400/2014-15 stored in CD No.SHVD185 in Book 1, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bangalore. 4. The petitioner purchased the property for a total consideration of Rs.36,00,00,000/- and paid an amount of Rs.2,01,60,020/- towards stamp duty and an amount of Rs.36,00,000/- as registration fee. The first respondent, District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Registrar’), issued a notice on 23-01-2016 stating that during the audit for the year 2014-15, the Accountant General of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, observed that there is a shortfall of Rs.1,13,44,081/- towards stamp duty and an amount - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25022 WP No. 53061 of 2016 of Rs.20,25,732/- towards registration fee, totally amounting to Rs.1,33,69,813/- and called upon the petitioner to make payment of deficit amount or in the alternative to file written objections along with supporting documents. 5. The petitioner filed the statement of objections stating how the market value of the property was arrived at, and the stamp duty and registration fee were calculated. The District Registrar vide letter dated 29.02.2016 had informed that a spot inspection of the property had been conducted on 10.03.2016 in pursuance of which the inspection was carried out. The inspection team had categorically enquired as to whether the property was being used as separate flats, then the petitioner had categorically indicated that the entire building is used as a single unit by the petitioner and the same is not divided or subdivided into portions. The petitioner also submitted the plan sanctions, katha certificate, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25022 WP No. 53061 of 2016 etc. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not accepted. The respondents considered each of the floors to be a separate unit and carried out the valuation confirming the aforesaid notice dated 23.01.2016, vide order dated 22.08.2016. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Sri G. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Registrar has not considered the explanation which has been given by the petitioner. The valuation made by the petitioner of Rs.36,00,000/- is as per the guideline value as it existed on the date of execution of the sale date. The District Registrar could not have increased the valuation by 40% on account of subsequent hike in the value of the property and called upon the petitioner to make payment of the alleged deficit stamp duty and registration fee. His submission also is that the entire property being used as a single - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25022 WP No. 53061 of 2016 unit, the valuation which has been made by the District Registrar taking each floor as a separate unit is bad in law. The sale deed having been executed and registered on 31.10.2014. It is the valuation as on that date which has been taken into consideration. The entire building is constructed as per a single sanction plan, and the whole building has been assessed to tax as a single building. The question of adding super built-up area and calculating stamp duty on that basis would not arise. 7. It is in that background that the learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to place on record the documents relating to plan sanction, assessment, occupancy certificate, katha certificate, as also property tax receipts, which have been filed on 18.06.2025. 8. By relying on those documents, he submits that the entire building is one single property and not different units as contended by the respondents. As - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25022 WP No. 53061 of 2016 such, he submits that the impugned order is required to be set aside and the amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court be directed to be refunded to the petitioner. 9. Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned AGA firstly submits that there is a statutory appeal which is available to the petitioner and further submits that the different floors have been leased out to different persons. As such, the property is deemed to have been subdivided and would be a flat within the meaning of Article 20 of the Karnataka Stamps Act, 1957. In that background, each of the floors has been considered to be a separate unit. 10. Heard Sri.Sridhar G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned AGA for respondents. Perused the papers. 11. The short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25022 WP No. 53061 of 2016 “Whether the building has to be considered to be a single property or the bifurcation made by the Authorities into different units on the basis of the different floors is proper and correct?” 12. The aspect of whether the building is a single unit or subdivided into flats would have to be taken into consideration on the basis of the plan sanction granted by the concerned Authorities, the occupancy certificate issued, and the assessment made in relation thereto. These documents having been filed along with the memo dated 18.06.2025. It is clearly seen that a single plan sanction is granted for the entire property so also a single occupancy certificate has been granted. A special notice was issued on 08.12.2014, assessing the entire building as a single unit so also a single khata certificate had been issued in respect of the entire building. The petitioner having making payment of taxes as regard the entire building as single unit. These documents having been accepted by the BBMP. It fails to reason as to how - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25022 WP No. 53061 of 2016 for the purpose of valuation of the property at the time of execution, registration of sale deed is sought to be made by regarding each floor as a unit when all the documents issued by other Departments would categorically indicate that the entire building has been considered as a single unit. It is on account of the bifurcation of the property into different units and adding super built-up area thereto that there is an increase in the valuation sought to be made by way of the impugned notice and order. 13. For the reasons aforestated, such bifurcation into different units not being countenanced under any documents, the District Registrar could not have done so. 14. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) Certiorari is issued, the order bearing No.SJN/SNR/46-A/01/15-16 dated 22.08.2016 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25022 WP No. 53061 of 2016 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure – A, is quashed. c) The respondents are directed to refund the amount in deposit with the respondents to the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 25.10.2015 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78