- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18254 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: SMT. NAINA SHETTY W/O SHRI ROHIT SHETTY, AGE: 39 YEARS, NO.306, 'ANANYA', 6TH MAIN ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. 2. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF STAMPS STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, BASAVANAGUDI DISTRICT, NO.779, DWARAKA, 1ST FLOOR, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, 2ND PHASE, 7TH BLOCK, 100 FEET RING ROAD, NEXT TO UDUPI GRAND HOTEL, BENGALURU-560 085. 3. SUB REGISTRAR, JIGANI, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, BANERGHATTA, BANGALORE-560 083. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN STP(A)/11/2020 DATED 06.04.2021 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.J¸ï n ¦ (C)/11/2020 dated 06.04.2021 issued by the respondent No.1 rejecting an appeal filed under Section 45A(5) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act, 1957’). She has also challenged the order bearing No.f£ÉÆç/MVD/JGN/15/16- 17 dated 06.02.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 determining the deficit stamp duty and the deficit registration charges payable, to the extent it is prejudicial to her interest. She has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to accept the valuation of the property as arrived at by her and collect the stamp duty and registration - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 charges on the property and register the sale deed dated 08.07.2016 in her name. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to refund a sum of Rs.9,66,263/-. 2. The petitioner contends that the property measuring 01 Acre in Sy. No.3, plot No.258/B, B-1, khata No.299/1-258-B, Ward No.09, Bommasandra Industrial Layout, Kittaganahalli (stated as Kittamangala in the petition) village, Attibele Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, was earlier part of a larger plot of land measuring 07 Acres and 1.85 guntas and belonged to Narayana Hrudayalaya Private Limited. The said 01 acre of land was leased to one Dr. K. Bhujanga Shetty for a period of 28 years from 01.07.2007 to 30.06.2035 in terms of a lease deed dated 10.07.2007 duly registered. The petitioner had agreed to purchase the said 01 Acre of leased property for a total sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- and presented a sale deed dated 08.07.2016 for registration. 3. The respondent No.3 claimed that the stamp duty and registration charges offered to be paid by the petitioner were insufficient and therefore, refused to register the sale - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 deed and kept the registration pending. He thereafter referred the matter under Section 45-A(1) of the Act, 1957 to the respondent No.2 for determination of proper market value and collection of deficit stamp duty. The respondent No.3 reported to respondent No.2 that the market value of the property was a sum of Rs.5,05,85,285/- as against a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- mentioned in the sale deed. He calculated the deficit stamp duty and registration fee payable at a sum of Rs.30,31,425/-. The petitioner submitted an elaborate statement before the respondent No.2 to contend that the market value mentioned in the sale deed was the real market value of the property and therefore, the stamp duty paid thereon was just and proper. However, the respondent No.2 allegedly without considering the submissions of the petitioner, passed an order dated 18.08.2017 determining the market value at a sum of Rs.3,92,04,000/- and determined the deficit stamp duty at Rs.19,32,526/- and deficit registration charges at Rs.3,42,040/- totalling to Rs.22,74,566/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.1. The petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 deposited 50% of the deficit stamp duty demanded by the respondent No.2 towards compliance of the first proviso to Section 45-A(5) of the Act, 1957. The respondent No.1 considered the appeal and held that the contentions urged by the petitioner merited consideration and therefore, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and set aside the order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 and remanded the matter back to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration in terms of an order dated 26.09.2019. 5. The respondent No.2, however, in terms of the order dated 06.02.2020, proceeded to recalculate the market value of the property on the following basis: 1 ¥ÀÄ£Àgï ¤zsÀðj¸À¯ÁzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ/ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ¨É¯É ¥Àæw ZÀzÀgÀrUÉ gÀÆ.575/- (LzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀÄ J¥ÀàvÉÛöÊzÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) 2 PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ/¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ MlÄÖ ¨É¯É (MlÄÖ 1 JPÀgÉ CAzÀgÉ 43560 ZÀzÀgÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ) gÀÆ.575 * 43560 ZÀzÀgÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀÆ.2,50,47,000/- (JgÀqÀÄ PÉÆÃn LªÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ £À®ªÀvÉÛüÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) 3 zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃf£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ªÀiË®å (FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¥ÁªÀw¸À¯ÁzÀ ªÀiË®å) gÀÆ.50,00,000/- (LªÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 4 C¥ÀªÀiË®åUÉÆArgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.2,00,47,000/- (JgÀqÀÄ PÉÆÃn £À®ªÀvÉÛüÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) 5 C¥ÀªÀiË®åUÉÆArgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ ªÀÄÄzÁæAPÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì (±Éà 5.65 gÀAvÉ) (±ÉÃ. 5.15 gÀAvÉ gÀÆ. 10,32,421/-) (±É. 0.50 gÀAvÉ gÀÆ. 1,00,235/-) gÀÆ.11,32,656/- (ºÀ£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ ªÀÄƪÀvÉÛgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ DgÀÄ£ÀÆgÀ LªÀvÁÛgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) 6 F¯Áè £ÉÆÃAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀÄr gÀªÀgÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: f£ÉÆç/ MVD/JGN//15/16-17, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-08- 2017, zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄ ¸ÀASÉå: ¦-2066/16- 17gÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄÄzÁæAPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 45(J) gÀr ªÉÄîä£À« ¸À°è¸À®Ä oÉêÀtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12-10-2017 gÀAzÀÄ ZÀ®£ï ¸ÀASÉå: 5/311 gÀAvÉ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄzÁæAPÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì (50% of the difference amount of duty) PÉn¹-25gÀ ¥Àæw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÉ gÀÆ.9,66,263/- (MA¨sÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ CgÀªÀvÁÛgÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ JgÀqÀÄ £ÀÆgÀ CgÀªÀvÀÛªÀÄÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) 7 PÉÆgÀvÉ ªÀÄÄzÁæAPÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì (gÀÆ.11,32,656 - gÀÆ.9,66,263) gÀÆ.1,66,393/- (MAzÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ CgÀªÀvÁÛgÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ£ÀÆgÀ vÉÆA¨sÀvÀÛªÀÄÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) OR ªÉÄîä£À« ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ¥ÀƪÀðzÀ°è gÀÆ.29,45,000/- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 C¥ÀªÀiË®åUÉÆAqÀ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ ±Éà 50% CAzÀgÉ gÀÆ.3,42,04,000/2 = gÀÆ.1,71,02,000/- UÀ½UÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¥ÁæzÉòPÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀªÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÄzÁæAPÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁ° ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ DzÉñÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ C¥ÀªÀiË®åUÉÆAqÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ (gÀÆ.2,00,47,000 - gÀÆ. 1,71,02,000) (E¥ÀàvÉÆÛA¨sÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ £À®ªÀvÉÛöÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) ªÀÄÄzÁæAPÀ ±ÀÄ®ÌzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ gÀÆ.29,45,000/- UÀ¼À C¥ÀªÀiË®åUÉÆArgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ PÉÆgÀvÉ ªÀÄÄzÁæAPÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì ±Éà 5.65 gÀAvÉ (±ÉÃ. 5.15 gÀAvÉ gÀÆ. 1,51,668/-) (±ÉÃ. 0.50 gÀAvÉ gÀÆ. 14,725/-) gÀÆ.1,66,393/- (MAzÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ CgÀªÀvÁÛgÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ£ÀÆgÀ vÉÆA¨sÀvÀÛªÀÄÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) 8 £ÉÆÃAzÀt ±ÀÄ®ÌzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ C¥ÀªÀiË®åUÉÆArgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ CAzÀgÉ gÀÆ.2,00,47,000/- UÀ½UÉ PÉÆgÀvÉ £ÉÆÃAzÀt ±ÀÄ®Ì (±Éà 1 gÀAvÉ) gÀÆ. 2,00,470/- (JgÀqÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ £Á®ÄÌ £ÀÆgÀ J¥ÀàvÀÄÛ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) 9 MlÄÖ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ PÉÆgÀvÉ ±ÀÄ®ÌUÀ¼ÀÄ (1) PÉÆgÀvÉ ªÀÄÄzÁæAPÀ ±ÀÄ®ÌUÀ¼ÀÄ ±Éà 5.15 gÀAvÉ gÀÆ.1,51,668/- ±Éà 0.50 gÀAvÉ gÀÆ.14,725/- (2) PÉÆgÉvÀ £ÉÆÃAzÀt ±ÀÄ®Ì ±Éà 1 gÀAvÉ gÀÆ. 2,00,470/- gÀÆ.3,66,863/- (ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ CgÀªÀvÁÛgÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ JalÄ£ÀÆgÀ CgÀªÀvÀÛªÀÄÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) and accordingly, directed the petitioner herein to pay the deficit stamp duty and the registration charges. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 who confirmed the order of the respondent No.2 in terms of an order dated 06.04.2021. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the respondent No.1, the petitioner is before this Court. 8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the market value of a property is the value that a willing purchaser would pay and is dependent on various factors. He contends that in the instant case, the property was subject to a lease and the petitioner would not get the possession of the property until the lease period expires. He, therefore, submits that the intrinsic value of the property was a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and that was the market value at which it was offered by the vendor. He, therefore, submits that the market value as mentioned by the petitioner must have been taken into consideration by the respondent - authorities and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 proportionate stamp duty and registration charges must have been calculated. In order to buttress this contention, he referred to the definition of ‘Market Value’ as defined under Section 2(1)(mm) of the Act, 1957 which reads as follows: “(mm) "Market Value" in relation to any property, which is the subject-matter of an instrument, means the price which such property would have fetched, in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner or the Appellate Authority or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, if sold in open market on the date of execution of such instrument or the consideration stated in the instrument, whichever is higher: Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Articles, in respect of an instrument executed by or on behalf of or in favour of the State Government or the Central Government or a local authority or other authority constituted by or under any law for the time being in force or a Body incorporate wholly owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government the market value of the property shall be the value of consideration for such conveyance as set forth in the instrument.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 Learned Senior Counsel contends that the words “sold in open market”, illustrates that the market value is dependent on various factors, one of which is when the property is in the possession of a tenant and immediate recovery of possession is not possible. He contends that in the instant case, the petitioner cannot recover possession of the property immediately in view of the lease deed executed, which is in force till the year 2035. Therefore, he contends that the property cannot be treated as a free-hold property but is subject to an encumbrance and therefore, the value mentioned in the sale deed dated 08.07.2016 represented the true market value of the property. He contends that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to consider these contentions and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 warrant interference. In support of his contention, the learned Senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shanti Bhushan (D) Thr. Lr. and others v. State of U.P. and Others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 489], where the Hon’ble Apex Court under similar circumstances, held: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 “31. The issue regarding the market value of the sale deed land on the date of execution of the sale deed is required to be decided by permitting the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The Assistant Collector will have to ascertain whether a comparable sale instance of a property in possession of tenants is available. If it is not available, the Assistant Collector will have to ascertain the market value of the sale deed property on the relevant date again by comparison method by taking market value of a comparable property which does not have encumbrance of tenancy. Thereafter, he will have to determine the percentage of the deduction which should be made from the market value in the facts of this case. These questions are to be decided by the Assistant Collector on the basis of the evidence on record. Therefore, subject to what we have held in the judgment, we propose to send back the case to the Assistant Stamp Collector for determination of the market value of the sale deed land on the date of execution of the sale deed.” He, therefore, contends that since the respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not consider the contentions urged by the petitioner, more particularly, in the light of a registered lease deed in respect of the property in question, the impugned order/s passed by the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be set at nought and the proceedings deserve to be remitted back to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration in accordance with law. He also referred to the following judgments: 1. Major General Kapil Mehra and Others v. Union of India and Another [(2015) 2 SCC 262]; 2. O.N.Talwar v. The Collector of Stamps [(1971) DLT 319: ILR (1972) I Delhi 137]; 3. Mani Ram Sharma and etc. v. Union of India [1984 SCC OnLine Del 217]; 4. Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) By LRs v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 4 SCC 789]; 5. Mohammad Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition Officer [(2009) 14 SCC 367]; 6. Goa Housing Board v. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar and another [(2011) 10 SCC 371]; to make a distinction between the value of encumbered and unencumbered property while determining the market value. Thus, he contends that the impugned order/s passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded for fresh consideration. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that under Section 45-B of the Act, 1957, the State Government has constituted a Central Valuation Committee which is empowered to estimate and revise the market value of properties in the State and this Committee is bound to follow the procedure as may be prescribed. Under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments), Rules, 1977, (for short, ‘the Rules, 1977’), various criteria are prescribed for arriving at the market value of the property. He further contends that there is no provision either in the Act, 1957 or under the Rules, 1977 for determining different market value of properties based on the defects that the property suffers from or the encumbrances that they are subject to. He submits that in the instant case, the petitioner has purchased the property, which is the subject matter of a lease. He contends that a lease does not create any right in favour of the lessee though an interest is created in his favour and therefore, the property does not suffer from any intrinsic defect of title. He contends that if the argument of the petitioner is accepted, then she would be bound to pay the deficit stamp duty after she recovers possession of the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 property, either during or after the expiry of the lease period. He, therefore, contends that when the market value mentioned by the petitioner in the sale deed does not correspond to the guideline value prescribed under Section 45-B of the Act, 1957, the impugned order/s passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is/are just and proper. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 11. The Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is a fiscal legislation, which deals with payment of stamp duty on non- testamentary conveyances brought about between the parties. A "conveyance" is defined under Section 2(d) of the Act of 1957 as follows:- "2(d) “conveyance” includes,- (i) a conveyance on sale, (ii) every instrument, (iii) every decree or final order of any Civil Court, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 (iv) every order made by the High Court under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 in respect of amalgamation of Companies, by which property, whether moveable, or immoveable or any estate is transferred to, or vested in, any other person, and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by the Schedule;" 12. The instruments chargeable with duty is dealt in Section 3 of the Act of 1957, which reads as follows:- "3. Instruments chargeable with duty.- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in the Schedule, the following instruments shall be chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in that Schedule as the proper duty therefor, respectively, that is to say,— (a) every instrument mentioned in that Schedule which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed in the territories of the State of Karnataka on or after the commencement of this Act; and (b) every instrument mentioned in that schedule which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed out of the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 State of Karnataka on or after that day, relates to any property situate, or to any matter or thing done or to be done, in the territories of the State of Karnataka and is received in the territories of the State of Karnataka: Provided that no duty shall be chargeable in respect of,— (1) any instrument, executed by, or on behalf of, or in favour of, the State Government in cases where, but for this exemption, the State Government would be liable to pay the duty chargeable in respect of such instrument; (2) any instrument for sale, transfer or other disposition, either absolutely or by way of mortgage or otherwise, of any ship or vessel, or any part, interest, share or property of or in any ship or vessel registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. Explanation.- Where no proper duty has been paid on the original of an instrument which is chargeable with an amount indicated in the Schedule as proper duty therefor, then a copy of such instrument whether certified or not and whether a facsimile image or otherwise of the original shall be chargeable with duty of an amount which is indicated in Schedule as proper duty for - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 the original of such instrument, and all the provisions of this chapter and Chapters IV, VI, VII and VIII of this Act shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to such copy of the original." 13. In the instant case, the petitioner has purchased a property, which undoubtedly was the subject matter of the lease, which was duly registered and such lease is in force till the year 2035. As per Article 20 of the Schedule to the Act of 1957, the relevant portion of the charging provision is extracted below: Art.20. (1) For Conveyance.- as defined by clause (d) of Section 2, not being a transfer charged or exempted under No.52, on the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance Five percent of the value. x x x x x x x x x x 14. Therefore, in the ordinary course, the duty determined by the respondent No.2 and upheld by the respondent No.1 would have been justified. However, in the instant case, the petitioner claims that the market value of the property had to be determined. She contends that the market value is determined by various factors and if the property is the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 subject matter of encumbrance, a willing purchaser would definitely not purchase the property at the guideline/or market rate but would purchase it at a distress value and therefore, that would represent the market value of the property. In order to understand this contention, it is appropriate to first refer to the definition of the "market value" as found in Section 2(mm) of the Act of 1957 and the same is extracted below:- "2(mm) "Market Value" in relation to any property, which is the subject-matter of an instrument, means the price which such property would have fetched, in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner or the Appellate Authority or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, if sold in open market on the date of execution of such instrument or the consideration stated in the instrument, whichever is higher: Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Articles, in respect of an instrument executed by or on behalf of or in favour of the State Government or the Central Government or a local authority or other authority constituted by or under any law for the time being in force or a Body incorporate wholly owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 Government the market value of the property shall be the value of consideration for such conveyance as set forth in the instrument." 15. There is no provision in the Act of 1957, which enables determination of market value at reduced rates only on the ground that the property which is the subject matter of conveyance is either mired in litigation or is subject matter of a prior encumbrance or intrinsically suffers from any defects. The petitioner might be justified in paying a price lesser than the market or guidance value on any ground but the moment a transaction chargeable to stamp duty is brought about, it triggers the liability to pay stamp duty based on either the guideline value or the consideration mentioned, whichever is higher. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are officers of the executive, cannot be expected to render a finding which is not provided for under the Act of 1957. If the Act of 1957 does not contemplate any such situation, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 obviously were right in not accepting the contention of the petitioner that the market value as mentioned in the sale deed is the real market value of the property in view of the encumbrance attached to it. If this contention is accepted, - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 then it would open flood gates by persons bound to pay stamp duty in inventing multitudinous reasons to avoid payment of stamp duty. 16. Though the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shanti Bhushan and others, referred supra, a perusal of the entire writ petition does not show that the petitioner had quoted any exemplar sale deeds where a similar property subject to a prior encumbrance, was sold at lesser than the guidance or market value. It is not even the case of the petitioner that there were any sale deeds executed around the same time and in the same locality which commanded the same price. Therefore, though the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that necessary deduction had to be made from the market value by taking into account the encumbrance, unless the petitioner points out that there are similar sale deeds where the market value of the property was similarly mentioned, it would be inequitable at this point in time to relegate the petitioner before the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Having regard to the fact that there is no tangible evidence on record to establish that there were any similar sale deeds where similar market value - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40580 WP No. 18254 of 2021 was mentioned in respect of the property similarly situate, no purpose would be served in remitting the case back to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration of the contentions urged in this writ petition. 17. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed. 18. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA-para Nos.1 to 9, PMR-para Nos.10 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53