SMT SOWMYASHREE T v. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
[a] The petition is allowed-in-part
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Judgment
(BY SRI. K.M. PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE) AND:
#1. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH RD, NGO COLONY, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6121 WP No. 1622 of 2026 HC-KAR
#2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REGISTRATION) AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, BBMP WARD NO.8, TATA NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560092.
#3. SUB-REGISTRAR MALLESHWARAM NO.17, MARUTHI PALAZA, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560003.
#4. M/S R.C. PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE FIRM NO. 16A, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE-560032. REP. BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, JAWAHAR GOPAL. (BY SRI.B. RAVINDRANATH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 …RESPONDENTS TOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2025 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO. STP/APL/06/2025 VIDE ANNX-A; DIRECT THE - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6121 WP No. 1622 of 2026 HC-KAR R-1 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION TO RECONSIDER THE CASE NO. STP/APL/06/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who has purchased an office unit in the fourth floor of the property known as "Grand Majestic Mall" in Gubbi Veeranna Rangamandira, Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru, aggrieved by the first respondent's order dated
21.11.2025. The first respondent has dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a decision under Section 45A(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 [for short, 'the Act of 1957'] on the ground that the petitioner's appeal is delayed but no application for condonation is filed. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6121 WP No. 1622 of 2026 HC-KAR
#2. Mr. K. M. Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the appeal would be in time if the limitation is reckoned from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the first order, and in any event, the petitioner should have been granted an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay. Mr. B. Ravindranath, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the first to third respondents, is heard in the light of the afore and the records are perused.
#3. The petitioner's grievance is with the valuation of the office unit as assessed by the Authority under Section 45A(1) of the Act of 1957. According to the petitioner, she has purchased this property for true value of Rs.10,000/- per Sq. Ft., but the petitioner is called upon to pay stamp duty at Rs.1,13,400/- [assessing its value at Rs.16,576/- per Sq. Ft]. This value is based on the value of the unit in the fourth floor and without opportunity to the - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6121 WP No. 1622 of 2026 HC-KAR petitioner to demonstrate that the value as indicated in the sale deed is the true value.
#4. These circumstances as also the fact that the petitioner specifically assert that she has filed an appeal immediately after receipt of the order dated
16.06.2025 under Section 45A(1) of the Act of 1957 persuades this Court to interfere with the first respondent's order and restore the petition reconsideration by the first respondent with liberty to the petitioner to file an application bringing forth on record the circumstances which justify that there is no delay in filing the appeal and to seek condonation of delay if in the event the opinion is that there is some delay in filing the appeal. As such, the following. ORDER [a] The petition is allowed-in-part. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6121 WP No. 1622 of 2026 HC-KAR [b] The first respondent's order dated
21.11.2025 is quashed restoring the proceedings for reconsideration. [c] The petitioner without further notice appear before respondent on 26.02.2026 and shall be at liberty to file an application for condonation of delay setting forthwith the circumstances as stated above. [d] The first respondent shall consider the application before proceeding to decide. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: [a] The petition is allowed-in-part
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.