MUKESH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal has been filed against the Order dtd. 6/12/2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore [Hereinafter referred to as "the High Court"] in dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition bearing No.3317 of 2019 filed by the appellant herein. By the said order, the High Court upheld the order dtd. 23/8/2016 passed by the Collector of Stamps, determining stamp duty at Rs.6,67,500.00 payable by the appellant qua land in Survey No.2087, 2088/9/1/1 measuring an extent of 0.076 Ares situated at Village Kheda, Tehsil Badnawar, District Dhar, Hereinafter referred to as "the subject land", acquired by him by way of consent decree, as affirmed by the Board of Revenue by order dtd. 12/2/2019.

(3.) Originally, the appellant had filed a Civil Suit bearing No.47-A/2013 before the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-2, Badnawar, for declaration and permanent injunction against one Abhay Kumar (Respondent No.2 herein) and the State of Madhya Pradesh (Respondent No.1 herein) stating that he is the owner of the subject land and is in long and continuous possession of the same by doing cultivation. It was alleged in the said suit that in the year 2013, the Respondent No.2 herein, who is the adjacent land owner of the appellant, attempted to sell the subject land to third parties, thereby dispossessing the appellant from the same. Pending the suit, both the parties entered into a compromise, based on which, the suit came to be decreed in favour of the appellant, on 30/11/2013 and the Respondent No.1 - State of Madhya Pradesh did not raise any objection nor filed any appeal against the said compromise decree. In terms of the said order dtd. 30/11/2013, the appellant applied for mutation of the said land before the Tehsildar concerned, who in turn referred the case to the Collector of Stamps, District Dhar (M.P). Upon perusal of the records, the Collector of Stamps initiated proceedings under Sec. 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and consequently directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.6,67,500.00 towards stamp duty, by order dtd. 23/8/2016. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred a revision, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, vide order dtd. 12/2/2019. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred Miscellaneous Petition No.3317 of 2019 to quash the said orders passed by the Collector of Stamps as well as the Board of Revenue. By the order impugned herein, the High Court dismissed the said Miscellaneous Petition, relying on its earlier order dtd. 24/7/2019 passed in M.P.No.3634 of 2019 [Siddhulal Kachi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another], wherein, reference was made to (i)the decision of this Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major [(1995) 5 SCC 709], in which, it was held that 'if a compromise decree is obtained as a device to obviate payment of stamp duty and frustrate the latter requirement of registration, then such a decree is required to be registered under the Registration Act and as a consequence thereof, the stamp duty is also payable'; and (ii)the order of the High Court dtd. 13/2/2017 in WP No.2170 of 2015 [Mohd. Yusuf and others v. Rajkumar and others]; and ultimately, it was held that the consent decree obtained in the suit, through which, new right was created over the property, needs registration and for this reason, stamp duty is also required to be paid. Being dissatisfied with the same, this appeal came to be filed by the appellant before this court.