1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 9982 OF 2009 Bijendra Ramkailash Singh .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Vinay S. Bhorge a/w. Mr. H. M. Kamdi for the Petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardozo AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. Date : 22nd February, 2010. P.C. 1. The petitioner had entered into an Agreement for Sale with the vendors of the property on 15.12.2003. Under clause 6 of the Agreement the vendor agreed to execute a deed of conveyance and give possession of the plots of land specified in the first, second, third and fourth schedules to the petitioner by delivering vacant possession and/or by attorning tenants. Consequently the parties agreed to transfer the possession of the immovable property to the purchaser after execution of the agreement. Hence, the agreement falls squarely within Schedule I Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 which has come into effect 2 from 1994 and under which such an Agreement for Sale is a deemed conveyance chargeable to stamp duty as a conveyance in the year 2003 when it was executed. 2. For the sake of convenience, Explanation I, to which my attention has been drawn by Ms. Cardozo, may be reproduced thus : Explanation I :- For the purposes of this article, where in the case of agreement to sell an immovable property, the possession of any immovable property is transferred [or agreed to be transferred] to the purchaser before the execution, or at the time of execution, or after the execution of such agreement then such agreement to sell shall be deemed to be a conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall be leviable accordingly : (underlining supplied) 3. Once it is seen that the agreement is a deemed conveyance, the petitioner would have to pay stamp duty as on the date of the agreement and within the time limit specified in the Indian Registration Act for registration of the agreement despite Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 4. Consequently, the payment of penalties would also commence if the proper and adequate stamp duty is 3 not paid at the time of registration of the agreement as on the date of the agreement. 5. The petitioner has not paid any stamp duty on the agreement. He sued the vendors. He entered into Consent Terms. He sought to have the Consent Terms registered as a conveyance in 2007. He now seeks to pay stamp duty on the Consent Terms. Mr. Kamdi on behalf of the petitioner contended that the parties did not agree to hand over possession under the Agreement, but the possession was handed over only upon the execution of Consent Terms and hence stamp duty on the transfer as a conveyance is payable only on the Consent Terms. The argument though at first glance seen to be reasonable, is incorrect. The Agreement shows the agreement between the parties to transfer the possession of the property, within a specified time after the execution of the said agreement. Hence it is chargeable to stamp duty as a deemed conveyance. The liability to pay such stamp duty is crystallized. Nonpayment must, therefore, result in penalty, which follows as a corollary. Merely because there is 4 another transaction between the parties, the crystallized liability under the law cannot be erased or substituted by another liability. If such allowance is made, the parties may enter into any further transaction in collusion to under the effect of the transaction despite reliance upon it and despite performance under it to frustrate the law. However, since the stamp duty is payable as in 2003, no further stamp duty need be paid upon any further documents (such as the Consent Terms) entered into by the parties later. 6. The order in the case of Padma Nair Vs. Deputy Collector, Valuation and Stamp Duty and another (1994 Mh. L. J. 497) relied upon by Mr. Kamdi on behalf of the petitioner does not apply to the petitioner’s case as in that case the transaction was of the year 1984, 10 years prior to the aforesaid amendment and it was held that the amendment could not be retrospectively applied. 7. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed. (R. S. DALVI, J.)