- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44329 WP No. 18877 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 18877 OF 2019 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: 1. MR MOHAMMED YOUSUFF S/O SHAIK AHMED, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.273/2, 8TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR IST BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SUB-DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMP. S.S.COMPLEX, OPP. TO KABASHADHI MAHAL, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, M B ROAD, KOLAR-563101. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44329 WP No. 18877 of 2019 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR MALUR TALUK, AT:MALUR - 563 108. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.11.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 - REGIONAL COMMISSIONER PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ALSO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.03.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR STAMP PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN STP(A)5/2017-18 AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 19.11.2018, (Annexure-A), passed by the respondent No.1-Regional Commissioner and order dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure-B), passed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44329 WP No. 18877 of 2019 respondent No.2-District Register and Deputy Commissioner. 2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner had purchased, the suit schedule property as per the registered Sale Deeds dated 13.02.2014 (Annexure-E and F). Thereafter, proceedings under Section 45 (A) (1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 was initiated for deficiency in stamping by the petitioner. The respondent No.2, by order dated 30.03.2017, (Annexure-B), allowed the objections raised by the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar for insufficient in payment of stamp duty and thereafter, the said order of the respondent no.2 confirmed by the respondent No.1 by order dated, 19.11.2018 (Annexure-A). Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44329 WP No. 18877 of 2019 Advocate for the respondent-State, I have carefully examined the reasons assigned by both the respondent- authorities in the impugned orders. It is forthcoming from the writ petition that the registered Sale Deeds dated 13.02.2014 (Annexure-E and F) are subject matter before the respondent No.2, to determine the requisite stamp duty to be payable by the petitioner. On careful consideration of the reasons assigned by the respondent No.2, wherein the registered Sale Deeds have been made, by showing the sale consideration as Rs.42 lakhs each, however, the respondent-authority has raised additional stamp duty of Rs.13,48,820/- on the ground that the land in question is situate in the main road, and thereby attracting a higher valuation, consequently, the impugned orders have been passed based on such assessment by the respondent- authorities. It is well settled principle in law that the determination of stamp duty is required to be made on the basis of either the sale consideration mentioned in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44329 WP No. 18877 of 2019 the registered Sale Deed or the guidance value fixed by the Government for the relevant property, whichever is higher. If the sale consideration mentioned in the document is below the prevailing guidance value, the respondent–authorities are bound to compute the stamp duty on the basis of such guidance value in accordance with law. In the present case, both the respondent- authorities have failed to appreciate the factual aspects on record in their right perspective and have proceeded to pass the impugned orders without assigning cogent or sustainable reasons. The reasons recorded in the impugned order, are therefore found to be untenable and contrary to law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. In that view of the matter, impugned order dated 19.11.2018, (Annexure-A), passed by the respondent No.1-Regional Commissioner and order dated 14.02.2017 (Annexure-B), passed by the respondent No.2-District Register and Deputy Commissioner, are hereby quashed and the matter is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44329 WP No. 18877 of 2019 remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration, with a direction to reassess the actual stamp duty payable by the petitioner, if any, based either on (a) the sale consideration mentioned in the registered Sale Deeds or (b) the guidance value of the property prevailing on the date of execution of the Sale Deeds referred to above— whichever is higher. Hence, the respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the issue afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within an outer limit of three months, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27