SSK/921 1 WP/8257.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8257 OF 2011 Madhav Housing Private Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. R. A. Thorat i/b. Mr. P. J. Thorat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 14th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C.: The writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 32(B) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. An Agreement dated 5th April, 2010 between the petitioner and M/s. Narottam Marketing Private Limited was submitted to respondent no.2 for adjudication under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. Respondent No.2, by his order dated 22nd April, 2010 adjudicated the said agreement and the valued the property, which sought to be transferred to the petitioner at Rs. 9,35,00,000/- and the petitioner was called upon to submit his say. The petitioner, by his application dated 3rd May, 2010 requested respondent no.2 to review the valuation of the said property. The petitioner was informed that valuation was fixed on the basis of ready reckoner prepared for the properties falling within the limits of Nashik Municipal Corporation. The petitioner was also SSK/921 2 WP/8257.11 informed that valuation is on the basis of prices fixed upto December, 2010, and in case, the petitioner failed to pay the stamp duty before December, 2010 the property would be valued as per the rates which would apply for the year 2011. The petitioner did not act in accordance with this letter, and therefore, on 28th February, 2011, the 2nd respondent revalued the said property at Rs.10,88,00,000/- and called upon the petitioner to pay the stamp duty on the basis of revised rates. The respondent no.2 vide his Order dated 31st March, 2011 directed the petitioner to pay stamp duty of Rs.54,40,000/-. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before respondent no.3 under Section 32(B)-1 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The said appeal was dismissed, and therefore, the present petition. 2. The only grievance made by the petitioner is that the part of the property in question was under reservation and some constructed portion of the said property is required to be given to Nashik Municipal Corporation. Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this fact is required to be taken into consideration while valuing the property in question. Similar argument was also made before respondent nos. 2 & 3 respectively. This argument, however, was rejected on the ground that though the petitioner or his predecessor-in-title is duty bound to give some constructed portion to the Nashik Municipal Corporation, they are in turn SSK/921 3 WP/8257.11 entitled to receive TDR. I find that the petitioner's request is rightly rejected. I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to enable this Court to interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)