ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J. These writ petitions are filed by Decree-holders in Civil Suits to enforce specific performance of the agreements of sale, calling in question the vires of Section 2(mm) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 for short ‘Act’, as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequential writ of certiorari to quash the notice issued under Section 45-A of the Act, relating to Under Valuation of the instrument of sale and recovery of stamp duty, to direct the respondents to release the Sale Deed, and for a direction that there is no undervaluation though the escalation in the value of property is due to delay in litigation. 2. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions, when presented, were supported by a decision of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 1997 MAD 296 where, in almost identical circumstances, the parties therein were extended be benefit of payment of stamp duty on the sale consideration, as shown in the agreement of sale. Learned Counsel hastens to add that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. M/S. KHANDAKA JAIN JEWELLERS, AIR 2008 SC 509 , There is very little scope for the petitioners to substantiate, their contention. 3. In these writ petitions, the vires of Section 2(mm) of the Karnataka Stamp Act is grounded on the premise that the petitioners paid valuable consideration, under the agreements of sale, for purchase of immovable properties, and when constrained to approach competent Courts of law, after prolonged litigation secured decrees for specific performance of the agreements of sale, whence there was escalation in the market value of the immovable properties, hence cannot be compelled to pay the stamp duty on the market value of the properties on the date of registration and execution of the Sale Deed. 4. The facts in State of Rajasthan’s case supra, relate to an agreement dated 20-10-1983 to convey a portion of the immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- of which Rs.10,000/- was paid, under the agreement and when the sale deed was engrossed on stamp paper, the vendor failed to fulfill the terms of the agreement and execute the Sale Deed. 50,000/- of which Rs.10,000/- was paid, under the agreement and when the sale deed was engrossed on stamp paper, the vendor failed to fulfill the terms of the agreement and execute the Sale Deed. Consequently, the purchaser instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, before the competent Civil Court in Jaipur and obtained a decree dated 2- 2-1994 directing the purchaser to deposit the balance of the sale consideration and secure execution of the Sale Deed. The Decree when put in execution, the decree Holder furnished the requisite stamp duty for execution and registration of the sale deed, but the Sub-Registrar, exercising power under Section 47A (1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptations) Act 7/1952, initiated proceedings, determined the market value and assessed the charge of stamp duty and penalty. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan accepted the case of the purchaser, which was affirmed by the Division Bench, holding that since the vendor had backed out and did not execute the Sale Deed of the property pursuant to the agreement of sale, the relevant date for assessment of stamp duty should be the date of specific performance of the agreement of sale. 5. The Apex Court, having regard to the provisions of the Rajasthan Stamp Law, held thus: ”What is relevant in fact is the actual valuation of the property at the time of the sale. The crucial expression used in Section 17 is “at the time of execution”. Therefore the market value of the instrument has to be seen at the time of execution of the sale deed, and not at the time when agreement to sale was entered into. An agreement to sell is not a sale. An agreement to sell becomes a sale after both the parties signed the sale deed. A taxing statute is not contingent on the inconvenience of the parties. It is needless to emphasize that a taxing statute has to be construed strictly and considerations of hardship or equity have no role to play in its construction. VISCOUNT SIMON quoted with approval a passage from ROWLATT. J., expressing the principle in the following words: “In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. VISCOUNT SIMON quoted with approval a passage from ROWLATT. J., expressing the principle in the following words: “In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used.” Emphasis supplied 6. Following the principles laid down in the case of A. V. FERNANDEZ vs STATE OF KERALA, AIR 1957 SC 657 , their lordships of the Apex Court further observed thus: “A taxing statute has to be construed as it is all these contingencies that the matter was under litigation and the value of the property by that time shot up cannot be taken into account for interpreting the provisions of a taxing statute. As already mentioned above a taxing statute has to be construed strictly and if it is construed strictly then the plea that the incumbent took a long time to get a decree for execution against the vendor the consideration cannot weigh with the Court for interpreting the provisions of the taxing statutes. Therefore, simply because the matter have been in litigation for a long time that cannot be a consideration to accept the market value of the instrument when the agreement to sale was entered. As per Section 17, it clearly says at the time when registration is made, the valuation is to be seen on that basis.” Emphasis supplied 7. In the instant case, Section 2(mm) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 reads thus: “2(mm) “Market Value” in relation to any property, which is the subject matter of an instrument, means the price which such property would have fetched in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner or the Appellate Authority or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, if sold in open market on the date of execution of such instrument or the consideration stated in the instrument, whichever is higher.” 8. A bare reading of the definition makes it abundantly clear that for the purpose of stamp duty, the market value in relation to the property shall be that which it would have fetched if sold in the open market on the date of execution of such instrument or the consideration as set out in the instruments, whichever is higher. 9. A bare reading of the definition makes it abundantly clear that for the purpose of stamp duty, the market value in relation to the property shall be that which it would have fetched if sold in the open market on the date of execution of such instrument or the consideration as set out in the instruments, whichever is higher. 9. Applying the principles laid down in the State of Rajasthan’s, case, supra, there is no merit in the petitioners’ challenge to the vires of Section 2(mm) of the Act as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the premise that the escalation in the market value, during the period of litigation, saddles the petitioners with the obligation to pay the stamp duty on the market value of the property on the date of execution of the conveyance or on the consideration as shown in the deed, whichever is higher. 10. The other reliefs sought for in the writ petition being consequential upon a decision over the vires of Section 2(mm), it is needless to state, do not survive for consideration. In the result, the writ petitions are accordingly, dismissed.