((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2491 OF 2007 Ramkumar Gulzarilal Khokhawala Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra Respondent Jayesh Bhatt for petitioner. Niranjan Pandit, AGP for respondent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 07th January 2008 PC : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Counsel for the respondent waives notice. By consent, matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith. 2. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Additional Controller of Stamps, Mumbai dated 28th September 2007. By the said order the authority has opined that the market value of the suit property ought to be determined at Rs.24,67,500/- on which basis the petitioner would be liable to pay the stamp duty. ((-2-)) MST 3. According to the petitioner, the opinion recorded by the said authority clearly overlooks the crucial factor that the property in question is admeasuring only 90.31 square meters on which there is a standing structure admeasuring about 50.80 square meters. Besides, the suit property is already placed under reservation as Recreation Garden under the Regional Town Planning Act. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that reliance placed by the authority on the opinion recorded by the Joint Director of Town Planning (Valuation), Pune-as noted in its communication dated 6th September 2007, which is based on the norms specified by the Inspector General of Registration so as to assume the price of the vacant land @ Rs.35,200/- per square meter (as mentioned at page 35 of the compilation); and applying principle of development potentials of the land as shown in example no.2 (at page 2 of the compilation), makes no reference to land which is placed under reservation. Whereas, the parameters provided in the said guidelines issued under Rule 4 of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of the Property) Rules, 1995, only refer to market value of the land which has potential of development. That ((-3-)) MST valuation is not comparable with the valuation of plots placed under reservation. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on the decision of our High Court in the case of Communidade of Candolim Vs. Dy. Collector (North), Panaji, reported in 2005(2)-All M.R.-258, which takes a view that the market value of the land which is unreserved and the market value of the land which is reserved will be incomparable and the fact that the property has been reserved is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for determining the market value of such land even under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. 6. The fact remains that the authority has not considered these aspects at all. Indeed, the counsel for the respondents would contend that the authority was concious of these aspects. Inasmuch as, even in respect of a reserved plot, the land would have potentials for development-as FSI of such land can be transferred and loaded on some other land in the form of TDR under the extant Development Control Rules. 7. There are two difficulties in the way of ((-4-)) MST respondents. In the first place, this is not the reason recorded in the order which is impugned before this Court. Secondly, the norms relied upon by the authorities do not specifically refer to such a situation. It would have been a different matter if the examples and norms specified by the authority such situation was also to be reckoned, so as to determine the market value on that basis. Suffice it to observe that all these aspects will have to be considered by the authority afresh and take appropriate decision as may be advised. All questions in that behalf are left open. 8. It is necessary to place on record that at the hearing of this petition the counsel for the petitioner in all fairness stated that the petitioner would restrict his challenge only to the order in question and was not interested in challenging any provision of the Act, Rules or guidelines issued by the Department. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and instead the petitioner is relegated to the Additional Controller of Stamps, Mumbai, who in turn shall decide the matter afresh without being influenced by any of the ((-5-)) MST observations made in the impugned order or for that matter the present order. All questions are left open to be decided on its own merits. 10. Petition allowed on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)