Background of the Case

The legal dispute arose when the petitioner, Suhas Damodar Sathe, entered into a registered Development Agreement and Power of Attorney with a landowner in Village Kune, Taluka Maval, District Pune, on October 21, 2005. The Development Agreement, valued at Rs.11,50,000/-, granted him rights to develop the land and convey or assign ownership to the developer or its nominee, which could include a cooperative society or an association of purchasers. The petitioner paid a nominal stamp duty of Rs.100 under Article 5(g-a) of the Stamp Act, applicable to Development Agreements.

Following this agreement and the execution of the Power of Attorney, the petitioner proceeded to sell portions of the land to third-party buyers through sale deeds. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) objected to the minimal stamp duty paid, asserting that the Development Agreement should be recognized under Article 25 (Conveyance), leading to a significantly higher stamp duty liability.

While the initial objection was withdrawn, fresh notices were issued in 2015, demanding a deficit stamp duty payment of Rs.5,84,900/- and a penalty of Rs.11,69,800/-.

Legal Proceedings and Court’s Decision

The petitioner contested these demands through multiple appeals, arguing that the Development Agreement did not transfer ownership but merely facilitated development. He maintained that the agreement was correctly categorized under Article 5(g-a) of the Stamp Act, and he had paid the appropriate stamp duty. His appeal before the Joint District Registrar was dismissed in February 2016, and a subsequent appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune (Deputy Inspector General of Registration), was rejected on June 3, 2017.

After these setbacks, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order issued on June 3, 2017. However, after a thorough review, the Bombay High Court upheld the Government’s decision, stating that the agreement effectively transferred property rights, making it subject to the higher stamp duty under Article 25 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner contended that when an agency is revoked, the developer cannot claim compensation under Section 205 of the Contract Act or assert a lien on the property under Section 221 of the Contract Act unless expressly permitted by law. He emphasized that an agent merely holds the principal’s property in a fiduciary capacity and does not acquire ownership rights.

To support his claim, the petitioner’s counsel cited the Bombay High Court’s Division Bench ruling in Adityaraj Builders v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2023), which distinguished between development agreements and conveyances, affirming that in a development agreement, ownership remains with the original landowner.

Further, he referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal v. Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil (2024), which clarified that stamp duty is based solely on the document itself, not the overall transaction.

The counsel also cited Victory Iron Works Ltd. v. Jitendra Lohia (2023), where the Supreme Court analyzed the terms “estate” and “property” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. He argued that a joint development agreement can grant multiple rights, some of which resemble ownership.

Additionally, he contended that in cases of ambiguity in fiscal laws, the interpretation favoring the taxpayer should prevail. Since the development agreement required the landowner to execute a conveyance in favor of the buyers’ association, he argued that it should be construed strictly as a development agreement rather than a conveyance.

State’s Argument

The Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), representing the State, strongly defended the stamp duty assessment. The State argued that development agreements transfer key rights, such as the right to enter and occupy the land, construct buildings, and sell or transfer newly constructed units to third parties. Since these rights create an interest in immovable property, they should be subject to stamp duty.

According to Section 2(g) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, a “conveyance” includes not only sale but also any instrument that transfers ownership or an interest in property. The legislature underlines the true nature of the transaction over the title given to it by the parties.

Distinguishing Conveyance and Development Agreement

An agreement is determined based on the rights it transfers and its financial structure:

• Transfer of Title or Interest: If ownership is transferred or promised upon execution of the agreement, it qualifies as a conveyance. A development agreement, however, allows construction and sale while ownership remains with the original owner until a separate sale deed is executed.
• Control and Possession: If the developer is granted only possession for construction without the independent authority to sell, it remains a development agreement. If the developer has the authority to sell units and collect payments directly, it functions as a conveyance.
• Consideration and Payment Structure: If the agreement involves a lump sum payment for all rights, it suggests a conveyance. If the developer earns a profit solely from future sales without acquiring ownership, it remains a development agreement.
• Requirement for Separate Sale Deeds: If ownership is transferred through separate sale deeds, the original owner retains title. If the developer can sell units directly, the agreement is classified as a conveyance.

Key Findings

The Court determined that the agreement granted the developer extensive rights over the property while the owner received full payment. Additionally, possession of the property was transferred to the developer. These factors clearly demonstrated a transfer of property interest, justifying its classification as a conveyance under Article 25 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

Final Ruling

The Bombay High Court upheld the revenue authority’s classification of the agreement as a conveyance, making it subject to higher stamp duty. The Court ruled that the agreement transferred significant property rights, including possession, construction, and the authority to sell—going beyond a mere development contract. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, reinforcing proper tax enforcement under the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

The Bombay High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that stamp duty should be determined based on the actual transfer of property rights rather than the label assigned to an agreement. By classifying the development agreement as a conveyance, the Court upheld the proper enforcement of tax laws, ensuring transparency in property transactions and preventing revenue loss.

This article was originally published in Realty+ on 2 April 2025 Written by: Ashoo Gupta, Partner. Click here for original article

Read Less-