Maharashtra Hikes Real Estate Document Handling Fee to ₹40 per Page, Sparks Public Outcry

Mumbai: Property buyers and sellers in Maharashtra will now face higher costs when registering real estate documents, as the state government has doubled the document handling fee from ₹20 to ₹40 per page. This additional fee is on top of existing expenses such as stamp duty and registration charges, which citizens must pay at government registration offices.

The revised charges were announced through a government resolution (GR) by the state revenue department. The earlier fee of ₹20 per page was implemented in 2001 under a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model aimed at digitizing the registration system. According to officials, the fee hike was necessary to cover the increasing costs of maintaining the software, servers, and data centers required to support the state’s digital property registration framework.

Unlike stamp duty and registration fees—which contribute directly to the state’s revenue—the document handling charge is collected by a private firm that manages the online registration platform.

However, the decision has drawn sharp criticism from consumer rights advocates. Many argue that the government is offloading the financial burden of digital infrastructure upgrades onto citizens.

“Stamp duty and registration charges already amount to 7% of a property’s value,” said Sachin Shingvi, president of the Association of Service Providers in Maharashtra, while speaking to The Times of India. “Charging ₹40 per page for scanning documents is nothing short of exploiting the public.”

Shingvi also pointed out irregularities in the fee application, noting that even in cases like rental agreements—where scanning may not be necessary—the government still levies a flat ₹300 charge per document. “This lacks justification and needs to be addressed,” he added.

Consumer groups have called for more transparency in how these fees are determined and applied. Some have even proposed that the cost of maintaining the digital infrastructure should be borne by the government, not the general public.

With discontent growing, many are urging the state to review the policy and provide clearer guidelines to avoid overburdening citizens engaging in essential property transactions.