ATUR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARTICLE 226 of the Constitution is invoked to question a demand made upon the petitioner based on section 34 (b) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (Act ).

(2.) PETITIONER is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on the business of construction and sale of multi-storeyed buildings. In the year 1968 the Ocean submerged area abutting the Cuffe Parade and Nariman Point, was reclaimed to provide for construction of buildings. The reclaimed land was divided into blocks, each given a number. For block No. V the State of Maharashtra issued an invitation to the public to make offers for purchase of plots with a view to put up multi-storeyed buildings thereon. The plots and structures were to given on a 99 years lease at specified rates. Petitioner tender @ Rs. 2297/- per square metre was accepted. A request was made that the necessary documents for the execution of a lease-deed in favour the flat purchasers who would band together to form a co-operative society or a Company be drafted. Government agreed to grant a lease in petitioners favour as promoter of a co-operative housing society or an incorporated body. Petitioners replied pointing out that the purchasers of flats in the buildings under construction were to form a co-operative society under the name and style of Basant Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Society ). Permission was sought to transfer the petitioners right, title and interest in the plot to the society. This request was to on 13th December, 1972 in the following words:-

(3.) PETITIONER takes exception to the demand and contends and that it had from the beginning made it clear that it claimed no interest in the plot and was acting for and on behalf of the Society or Company. It having acted in this capacity and the respondents having accepted this position, could not now turn back and contend that it had acquired an interest in the plot and that it was that interest which was to be assigned to the Society. No duty was payable by it and the demands contained in Exs. P and W deserved to be quashed.