Gujarat High Court
Bhaveshkumar Jamnadas Patel vs Superintendent Of Stamps on 21 June, 2022
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/14531/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14531 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14534 of 2021
==========================================================
BHAVESHKUMAR JAMNADAS PATEL
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UJAS H PATEL(11804) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.ADITYA J PANDYA(6991) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 21/06/2022
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent-State.
2. Since a short issue is raised in the present writ petitions, the same are heard and decided today.
3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Aditya J. Pandya appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court dated 08.03.2021 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, where the Supreme Court has extended the period of limitation in all the proceedings. He has submitted that by the impugned order dated 16.07.2021, the application for refund of the petitioner dated 22.01.2021 has been rejected on the ground of limitation.
4. The brief facts of Special Civil Application No.14531 of 2021 as a lead matter are as under:-
4.1. The petitioner is the party of the Second Part in a Conveyance Deed, which was to be executed for Cancellation of a registered Sale Deed Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 23 20:46:44 IST 2022 C/SCA/14531/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2022 bearing No.17974 dated 05.10.2010, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar. The documents pertained to an agricultural land situated at:
Registration District Gandhinagar, Sub-District Gandhinagar, Taluka Gandhinagar, Village Zundal bearing Revenue Block/Survey Number 62/2 admeasuring 6,678 Sq.Mts. The said land having been included in the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.410 (Amiyapur Zundal-Sughad) having Final Plot No. 87 admeasuring 4,007 Sq.Mts Non-Agricultural usage land.
4.2 For executing the above Cancellation Deed, the petitioner purchased Adhesive Stamp from The Vijay Co-operative Bank Ltd., having license No.GUJ/SOS/AUTH/AV/256/2009 from vending place Ramnagar Chowk, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, by way of Franking. The stamp bearing serial number 20957 145588 has value of Rs.3,33,800/-(Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-Three Thousand and Eight Hundred Only) was purchased on 18.10.2019 to be pasted on the Cancellation Deed according to the rates prevailing at the time.
4.3 The petitioner had prepared the Cancellation Deed and pasted stamp on the same. The deed was to be executed by putting signatures of other parties. However, for some reason, the transaction of Cancellation of Sale Deed failed. Hence, the Cancellation Deed, over which the stamp was pasted, could not be executed between the parties.
4.4 The deed so mentioned was to be executed for the cancellation of a registered sale deed bearing No.17974 dated 05.10.2010 registered with the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, but the same could not take place due to the occurrence of COVID-19 pandemic and also owing to the mental condition of the present petitioner. The business of the petitioner was also adversely affected on account of the lockdown. Therefore, the conveyance deed was not executed by either of the parties to the conveyance deed for cancellation of sale deed.Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 23 20:46:44 IST 2022
C/SCA/14531/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2022
5. Learned advocate Mr.Aditya J. Pandya has submitted that because of the lockdown imposed by the State Government and due to COVID-19 restrictions, the petitioner could not file an application and the same was filed on 22.01.2021 before the Superintendent of Stamp, Gandhinagar requesting the refund for the stamp was used by the petitioner on the convenience date so mentioned, however, the same has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground of limitation. It is submitted by him that the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision has extended the limitation in all the proceedings. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may be set aside.
6. Learned AGP Mr.Sahil Trivedi has submitted that in fact the petitioner had purchased the stamp on 18.10.2019 and as per the provisions of Section 48 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 (for short "the Stamp Act"), such applications seeking refund should have been made within a period of six months, which got over on 17.04.2020 and hence, the impugned order may not be disturbed.
7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
8. The facts, as recorded hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioner purchased stamp on 18.10.2019 and for seeking refund, he has to file an application before six months, as per Section 48 of the Stamp Act. The said period got over on 17.04.2020. Meanwhile, the country was facing the pandemic situation of COVID-19 and various restrictions, including lockdown was also imposed. The Supreme Court, while taking cognizance of such situation, initiated proceedings vide Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 for recalculating the limitation period. By the order dated 08.03.2021 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, the Supreme Court has issued the following directions:-Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 23 20:46:44 IST 2022
C/SCA/14531/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2022 "2. We have considered the suggestions of the learned Attorney General for India regarding the future course of action. We deem it appropriate to issue the following directions: -
1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded.
Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.
2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."
9. The case of the petitioner will fall in direction no.2. As per the directions issued by the Apex Court, the limitation of 90 days was extended till 15.03.2021 and accordingly, the petitioner filed an application seeking refund on 22.01.2021, which was within the period of limitation as prescribed by the Supreme Court.
10. Hence, the impugned order dated 16.07.2021, which is passed in ignorance of the order passed by the Apex Court, is required to be quashed and set aside and the same is quashed. The matter is remanded to the concerned authority, who has passed the order dated 16.07.2021 and it is directed to decide the application dated 22.01.2021 filed by the present petitioner on merits.
Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 23 20:46:44 IST 2022C/SCA/14531/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2022
11. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order.
12. The present petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ABHISHEK/42+43 Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 23 20:46:44 IST 2022