Facts: The Petitioner, Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., sought to acquire land for a Slum Redevelopment Project. In January 2017, the Collector of Stamps adjudicated the stamp duty at Rs. 3.15 crores based on a draft Agreement for Sale, which the Petitioner subsequently paid. Nearly five years later, in December 2021, the Collector issued a demand notice alleging a deficit of approximately Rs. 1.01 crores. This revision was based on an internal audit suggesting that the cost of constructing a Permanent Transit Camp (PTC) should have been added to the consideration value. Following this, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) passed an order on June 20, 2024, confirming the deficit and imposing a penalty. The Petitioner challenged these demands, arguing that the valuation methodology was flawed and that the proceedings were barred by the statutory limitation period.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the demand notices and the CCRA's order passed under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.
Issue: (i) Whether the CCRA's methodology of adding construction costs of the PTC to the consideration value for a slum redevelopment project was legally valid. (ii) Whether the CCRA can pass a final order for recovery of deficit duty under Section 53A of the Stamp Act beyond the six-year limitation period from the date of the Collector's certificate.
Holding: (i) No, the methodology was arbitrary and violated the specific valuation guidelines for slum projects. (ii) No, the entire process, including the final order of recovery, must be completed within the six-year statutory window.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that for slum redevelopment agreements, Guideline No. 26 of the Annual Statement of Rates (ASR) is the specific applicable rule. This guideline does not provide for adding the cost of constructing a PTC to the consideration value; rather, such construction is a cost incurred by the developer, not a value pocketed by the landowner. By adding this cost, the CCRA erroneously mixed two separate strands of value assessment. On the second issue, the Court applied a literal and strict interpretation of Section 53A, which is a fiscal provision. It held that the "period of six years" mentioned in the statute refers to the timeframe within which the authority must not only initiate but also complete the examination and order the recovery. Since the original adjudication occurred in January 2017 and the impugned order was passed in June 2024 (over seven years later), the proceedings were barred by limitation.