Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash Chandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 August, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 28 th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 5847 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
KAILASH CHANDRA S/O S/O R.S.AGRAWAL, AGED
ABOUT 64 YEARS, SEONIMALWA, DIST.HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. SUDIPTA CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH REVENUE
DEPT.,VALALBH BHAWAN,BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. BOARD OF REVENUETHR: MEMBER MOTI
MAHAL GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER BHOPAL CAMP
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. COLLECTOR OF STAMPS HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DEVKISHAN SARDATHR: LR'S HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SMT. SIREKUNWARW/O DEVKISHAN SHARDA
MAIN ROAD NEAR NARMADA TEMPLE SEONI
DISTT. HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. KESHAV KUMARS/O DEVKISHAN SHARDA 260,
SAKET NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. NARENDRA KUMARS/O DEVKISHAN SHARDA
MAIN ROAD NEAR NARMADA TEMPLE SEONI
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SMT. INDUOMPRAKASH MUCHHAL 641, USHA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 28-08-2023
19:51:35
2
NAGAR EXTENSION INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. SMT. VEENAW/O SUBODH GATTANI 7, GOREPETH
NAGPUR M.S. (MAHARASHTRA)
11. SMT. SARITAW/O KISHORE BAHETI FLAT NO.102,
NISARG APARTMENT KARVE ROAD POONA M.S.
(MAHARASHTRA)
12. SMT. SEEMAW/O RAJESH SABOO FLAT NO.102,
FALGUN APARTMENT TILAK NAGAR NAGPUR
(MAHARASHTRA)
13. HARKISHAN SARDAS/O MADANLAL SARDA NEAR
NARMADA TEMPLE TEH. SEONI MALWA
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIVEK SHARMA - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
STATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
T his petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated 12.04.2007 (Anneuxre P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, order dated 11.08.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal/Hoshangabad Division Bhopal and order dated 09.12.2002 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector of Stamps rejecting an application moved by the petitioner for refund of stamp duty amount.
Petitioner's contention is that petitioner had entered into an agreement for purchase of a property. On the basis of said agreement, he had purchased necessary stamps worth Rs.23,700/- on 14.12.2000 for getting the sale-deed registered for an agriculture land from respondents No.5 and 6. Before agreement could be executed in the form of the sale-deed, some dispute arose between the proposed buyer and the seller, as a result of which nonjudicial Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 28-08-2023 19:51:35 3 stamps could not be used. Petitioner had moved an application on 11.06.2001 under Section 50 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 for the refund value of the nonjudicial stamp.
This application was dismissed by the Collector of Stamps, this order w a s affirmed by the Additional Collector, Bhopal/Hoshangabad Division Bhopal and then by the learned Board of Revenue.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Committee-GFIL Vs. Libra Buildtech Private Limited and Others, (2015)16 SCC 31. It is submitted that under similar facts and circumstances, as recorded in para 16 of the judgment, supreme Court allowed the application vide para 32 of the said judgment.
Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that since the application was filed on the aspect of limitation, application for condonation of delay be allowed and matter be remitted to the Collector of Stamps.
It is submitted that in terms of the provisions contained in Sections 49 and 50 of the Indian Stamps Act refund is not refundable, there is limitation of only two months.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that matter is hanging in balance since 2001, when for the first time application was moved for refund of the value of the nonjudicial stamp.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 32 of the said judgment in case of Committee-GFIL (supra) has held as under :-
" 3 2 . In our considered opinion, even if we find that applications for claiming refund of stamp duty amount were rightly dismissed by the SDM on the ground of limitation Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 28-08-2023 19:51:35 4 prescribed under Section 50 of the Act yet keeping in view the settled principle of law that the expiry of period of limitation prescribed under any law may bar the remedy but not the right, the applicants are still held entitled to claim the refund of stamp duty amount on the basis of the grounds mentioned above. In other words, notwithstanding dismissal of the applications on the ground of limitation, we are of the view that the applicants are entitled to claim the refund of stamp duty amount from the State in the light of the grounds mentioned above."
In view of such facts and the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that expiry of period of limitation prescribed under any law may bar the remedy but not the right, the impugned orders deserves to be set aide and is hereby set aside. Petitioner will be entitled to refund of the stamp duty amount, which may be made within three months from date of certified copy.
In above terms, petition is allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 28-08-2023 19:51:35