- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30435 WP No. 5964 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5964 OF 2022 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: M/S OFFICE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND HOLDINGS PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT E715, 7TH A MAIN, RAHEJA RESIDENCY KORAMANGALA 3RD BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 034 AND REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT (INVESTMENTS) MR MOHAMMED SAQIB KHAN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANURADHA AGNIHOTRI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY BANGALORE DIVISION, HAVING OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (STAMPS) AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR JAYANAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT HAVING OFFICE AT NO.12, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK EAST, BANGALORE-560 011. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30435 WP No. 5964 of 2022 3. SUB REGISTRAR JAYANAGAR (BEGUR) NO.1105-9C, BEGUR VILLAGE BANGALORE-560 019 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 9 MARCH 2020 PASSED BY THE R2 WHICH IS ANNEXED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner who had purchased office space in a commercial building known as Tower D in 'IBC Knowledge Park' situated at No.4/1, Bannerghatta Road, Ward No.63, Bangalore, in terms of a deed of sale dated 07.09.2019, was issued with a notice dated 03.12.2019 by the respondent No.2- District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department in Form-II calling upon him to show cause within 21 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, justifying the value mentioned in the instrument and the stamp duty paid thereon. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30435 WP No. 5964 of 2022 2. In response, petitioner had submitted a reply on 20.12.2019 giving comparative sale deeds and the value mentioned therein justifying the value mentioned in the instrument and the stamp duty paid thereon. Similar notices were again issued by the respondent No.2-District Registrar, on 30.12.2019 and 13.02.2020. Thereafter, The respondent No.2- District Registrar, registered the case in JMVD/BGR-01/2019- 2020 and the proceedings were conducted. Objection statements to the said proceedings were also filed by the petitioner herein under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation Instruments) Rules 1977 (Rule 1977 for short). Not being satisfied with the reply furnished by the petitioner, the respondent No.2-District Registrar, passed the order on 09.03.2020 directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty of Rs.3,96,81,695/-. Being aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 45-A(5) before the Regional Commissioner and Appellate Authority. The Regional Commissioner confirmed the order of the respondent No.2- District Registrar, vide order dated 18.01.2022. Being aggrieved by the same, present writ petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30435 WP No. 5964 of 2022 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises three grounds; (a) Firstly, he submits that in the Guidelines value issued by the Department of Stamps and Registration, Government of Karnataka, there is no specific classification with regard to the subject property except stating its location as Bannerghatta Road. If that is taken into consideration the stamp duty paid by the petitioner is in excess. However, he submitted the authorities have taken into consideration the value of the property mentioned at Sl.No.444 of the notification which is applicable only in respect to the commercial sites. He further submitted that there is also a confusion with regard to very location of the property. Whereas the notice indicate the property as located on Bannerghatta Road and the Regional Commissioner has taken the location of the property as Lakkasandra. According to the petitioner, the property is located at Byrasandra. This aspect of the matter has not gone into by the respondent-authorities. (b) Secondly, Rule 4 of the Rule 1977 warrants issuance of notice in Form No.II. Notice in Form No.II in turn - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30435 WP No. 5964 of 2022 mandates Deputy Commissioner to specify the amount paid and amount payable towards the stamp duty. That in the instant case, notices issued in Form No.II by the respondent No.2-District Registrar on 03.12.2019, 30.12.2019 as well as 13.02.2020 do not comply with this mandatory provision, leaving the petitioner in void to advert to the demand made by the authorities. Nonetheless, petitioner to show its bonafide furnished the details justifying the valuation as made in the instrument and the stamp duty paid thereon. Petitioner was not informed about the stamp duty payable as per the assessment of authorities until order dated 09.03.2020, came to be passed by the respondent No.2-District Registrar. It is only then the petitioner learnt about the process adopted by the respondent- authorities in demanding exorbitant amount towards the stamp duty, which is completely unilateral and arbitrary. (c) Thirdly, he submits that the respondent No.2- District Registrar, and the respondent No.1- Regional Commissioner have not appreciated the grounds urged by the petitioner in the statement of objection. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30435 WP No. 5964 of 2022 4. Thus, there is a substantial procedural irregularity in process adopted by the respondent-authorities causing extreme financial hardship and prejudice to the petitioner, warranting interference at the hands of this Court. 5. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents- authorities on the other hand justifying the order passed by the respondent No.2-District Registrar, confirmed by the respondent No.1-Regional Commissioner submits, that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity by issuing as many as 3 notices and the petitioner himself has given reply to the notice as well as filed the detailed objections and he has not raised the technical issue of notice not being compliance with Rule 4 of Rules, 1977. Therefore, he submits the petitioner cannot improve upon its case in the writ petition and thus seeks for rejection of the petition. 6. Heard. Perused the records. 7. Since the first ground urged by the counsel for the petitioner pertains ambiguity with regard to location of the subject property involving complex facts, this Court do not deem it appropriate to delve into it. However, there is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30435 WP No. 5964 of 2022 considerable force in the submission made by the counsel to the petitioner with regard to the second ground i.e. notices issued by the respondent-authorities in Form No.II, not being rule compliant. 8. Rule 4 of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation Instruments) Rules 1977 read as under; "4. Procedure on receipt of reference under Section 45- A.-(1) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 45-A from a registering officer, the Deputy Commissioner shall issue a notice in Form II, - (i) to every person by whom, and (ii) to every person in whose favour the instrument has been executed, informing him of the receipt of the reference and asking him to submit to him, his representation if any, in writing to show that the market value of the property has been truly set forth in the instrument, and also to produce all evidence that he has in support of his representation, within 21 days from the date of service of the notice. (2) The Deputy Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, record a statement from any person to whom a notice under sub-rule (1) has been issued. (3) The Deputy Commissioner may for the purpose of his enquiry, - (i) call for any information or record from any public office, officer or authority under the Government or any local authority; (ii) examine and record statements from any member of the public, officer or authority under the Government or the local authority; and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30435 WP No. 5964 of 2022 (iii) inspect the property after due notice to the parties concerned. 2[(4) x x x x x.] 9. Notice in Form No.II prescribed under the Rule 4 read as under; [FORM II [See Rule 4] OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Form of notice prescribed under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1977 To M/s./Sri/Smt…………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… 1. Please take notice that a reference has been received by the undersigned from the registering officer at........ under sub-section (1) of Section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act No. 34 of 1957), for determination of the market value of the properties covered by an instrument of conveyance/gift/exchange/settlement/partition/dissolution of partnership/an agreement to sell covered under sub- clause (i) of clause (e) and clause (f) of Article 5/ a lease covered under item (iv) of sub-clause (a), item (ii) of sub- clause (b), item (ii) of sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 30/a power of attorney covered under clause (ea) or (eb) of Article 41/or every decree or final order of any Civil Court for which has been presented registration on…………………. and has been assigned pending No.............................../ 2. The market value as per the reference is Rupees………….. and the duty payable thereon is Rupees……………. . 3. You are hereby required to submit your representations, if any, in writing to the undersigned within 21 days from the date of service of this notice to show that the market value - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30435 WP No. 5964 of 2022 of the properties has been truly and correctly set forth in the instrument. You may also produce all evidence in support of your representation within the time allowed. 4. If no representations are received within the time allowed, the matter will be disposed of on the basis of the facts available. Station: Deputy Commissioner. Date: * Delete whatever is not applicable.]" 10. Thus, it is expected from the respondent-Authorities to have strictly complied with the said Rule while issuing the notice in prescribed format intimating the petitioner as to the stamp duty paid and payable as mandated thereunder. The purpose is not far to seek. It is to afford sufficient and just opportunity to the petitioner to defend its case. Petitioner cannot be left under illusion to answer a demand which is not specified, which is the classic case at hand. 11. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the mode, method and process of arriving at a calculation is found only in the order dated 09.03.2020 passed by the respondent No.2-District Registrar, at page 9 where the calculation of value of the property is provided. Had the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30435 WP No. 5964 of 2022 authority provided the said calculation in the earlier notice, petitioner would have been in a better position to respond to the same and put forth its case. This is not any concession to be shown, rather it is the mandate of the law which the respondents-Authorities have failed to adhere to. Said ground is sufficient for the purpose of allowing this petition. 12. Accordingly, the following; (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 09.03.2020 passed by the respondent No.2- District Registrar vide Annexure-A and order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the respondent No.1- Regional Commissioner vide Annexure-B are quashed. (iii) Matter is remitted to the respondent No.2- District Registrar to re-consider the case of the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner shall consider the order dated 09.03.2020 passed by the respondent No.2-District Registrar and the information provided thereunder - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30435 WP No. 5964 of 2022 as the notice, and respond to the same without insisting for a formal notice to be issued hereafter. (v) The petitioner is at liberty to submit its response/ objection within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copies of the order. (vi) The respondent-authority shall consider such response/objection to be filed by the petitioner and if need by provide an opportunity of personal hearing and shall pass the appropriate order within an outer limit of 60 days thereafter. (vii) As submitted, the petitioner has already deposited an aggregate sum of Rs.2,27,49,343/- (Rs.1,67,49,343+ Rs.60,00,000) which shall constitute as deposit, subject to outcome of the order to be passed by respondent No.2-District Registrar. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47