- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11906 WP No. 106675 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106675 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI PUNDLIK S/O. RAMNINGA PATIL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND DRIVER, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW RESIDING AT HALAKARNI, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591 302. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.C.COMPOUND, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590 001. 2. THE TAHASILDAR KHANAPUR, TALUK. KHANAPUR, DISTRCIT. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591 302. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, D.C.COMPOUND, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590 001. 4. SHRI PARASARAM S/O. NINGAPPA PATIL, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11906 WP No. 106675 of 2025 R/O. HINDALGI, TALUKA: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE:591302. 5. SHRI MAHABALESHWAR S/O. NINGAPPA PATIL, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE, R/O. HINDALGI, TALUKA: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE:591302. 6. SHRI JAYAVANT S/O. NINGAPPA PATRI, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HINDALGI, TALUKA: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE:591302. 7. SHRI RAJU S/O. NINGAPPA PATRI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HINDALGI, TALUKA: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE:591302. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 06-01-2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 03-08-2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-G HEREIN PASSED THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KHANAPUR IN OS NO. 268/2017 AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 03-02-2025 NO. 1RRC/CR/66/2024-25 AND NOTICE DATED 22-04-2025 NO. RRC/CR/66/2024-25 AS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TAHASILDAR, KHANAPUR AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND H1, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION BY THIS HON BLE COURT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11906 WP No. 106675 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Learned AGA accepts notice to respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Notice to respondent Nos.4 to 7 is dispensed with in view of the memo filed by the counsel for the petitioner and also on account of the fact that the levy of stamp duty and penalty is one between the Court and the petitioner who was the plaintiff in OS No.268/2017, as regards which respondent Nos.4 to 7 would not have any role to play. 3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a Writ or Order or direction in the Nature certiorari by Quashing the impugned Order dated 06-01-2022 as per Annexure-F and the impugned order dated 03-08-2023 as per Annexure-G herein passed the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur in OS No. 268/2017 and the Consequential Impugned Notice dated 03- 02-2025 No. RRC/CR/66/2024-25 and notice dated 22-04-2025 No. RRC/CR/66/2024-25 as issued by the Respondent No.2 Tahasildar, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11906 WP No. 106675 of 2025 Khanapur as per Annexure-H and H1, by allowing this writ petition by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice and equity. b. Issue such other Writ or Order or Direction as this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. In the suit in OS No.268/2017, the petitioner had filed a relinquishment deed engrossed on ₹20/- stamp paper. The Trial Court being of the opinion that it is insufficiently stamped and unregistered, impounded the same and referred the matter to the District Registrar regarding calculation of the stamp duty prevailing as on that date. 5. A report of the District Registrar having been received, the Trial Court, vide order dated 03.08.2023 came to a conclusion that the stamp duty which required to be paid on the document was ₹15,240/-, the document being engrossed on ₹20/- stamp paper, the deficit stamp duty is ₹15,220/- and in that background imposed 10 times penalty amounting to ₹1,52,200/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11906 WP No. 106675 of 2025 totally amounting to ₹1,67,420/- and directed the petitioner to make payment of the duty and penalty. 6. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner being unable to make payment of the said amount, the suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, proceedings have been initiated by the Tahasildar for recovery of the deficit duty and penalty on the document. It is challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Sri.Sanjay S Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is a deficit stamp duty, there was a discretion with the Trial Court in levy of the penalty and it was not required for 10 times penalty to be imposed. By relying on the decision in the case of Gangappa and Another vs. Fakkirappa reported in AIR 2019 SC 90, he submits that the petitioner being a farmer and the document being a relinquishment deed executed among family - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11906 WP No. 106675 of 2025 members, the Trial Court ought to have levied lesser penalty than that imposed. 8. Having gone through the decision in Gangappa’s case, wherein this Court has categorically held that the discretion is with the Trial Court impounding a document to impose the quantum of penalty and it is not in every case that 10 times penalty is required to be imposed. It is only taking into consideration the exigent circumstances that penalty of different nature or different quantum could be imposed. 9. In the present case, I do not see any justification for imposing a 10 times penalty or any action on the part of the petitioner requiring such imposition of a penalty. 10. In that view of the matter, I pass the following ORDER i. The penalty imposed by the Trial Court is reduced to one time i.e ₹15,220/-. As such, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11906 WP No. 106675 of 2025 respondent - Tahasildar would now be entitled to recover the deficit stamp duty of ₹15,220/- along with a penalty of ₹15,220/-, amounting to ₹30,440/-. The order of the Trial Court stands modified accordingly. ii. It is, however, made clear that this order will not permit the petitioner to file any more suits by relying on that document, namely the relinquishment deed. iii. IA No.1/2025 is allowed. Production of a certified copy of Annexure-H1 is dispensed with. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SH Ct:pa List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21