A divison bench of the Justice Aravind Kumar and Ashutosh J. Shastri of Gujarat HC allowed the request of petitioner for refund of the amount towards unutilized stamp papers and set aside the order dated 13.09.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.15237 of 2019. The court observed that in order dated 13.09.2019 the learned single judge had completely ignored the sub-clause (3) of clause (c) of Section 47 while rejecting the claim
Facts:
This a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated 13.09.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.15237 of 2019 whereunder the communication dated 08.11.2012 issued by the respondent rejecting the request of petitioner for refund of the amount towards unutilized stamp papers came to be rejected. The facts of the case are that the applicant had purchased stamp papers on 16.05.2012 and 18.05.2012 for the purpose of obtaining a registered Sale Deed for a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- and Rs.1,00,500/-. On account of the vendors having refused to execute the Sale Deed and on account of transaction having failed, applicants were said to have submitted an application to the respondent authorities for refund of the value of unutilized stamp papers which remained unused or unutilized by submitting applications on 12.07.2012 and 11.09.2012. The applications were rejected on the ground that said documents had been duly signed and refund cannot be entertained.
The petitioners approached the learned Single Judge by filing Special Civil Application No.15237 of 2019, who noticed that Section 53 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, provides for limitation within which the revision petition had to be filed against the orders passed under the provisions of Chapter-V and as such held that belated challenge to the order before this Court under Article 226 was liable to be rejected and accordingly had rejected the application.
Observations of the Court
The court observed that it clearly emerges from the applications dated 12.07.2012 and 11.09.2012 came to be filed for refund of the stamp papers which had been purchased in a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- and Rs.1,00,500/-. According to the applicants, said transaction of sale could not be completed or in other words, said transaction did not take place on account of the vendors having refused to execute the Sale Deed or in other words, they had turned back from their commitment and as such, they contended that Sale Deed could not be executed and registered. Hence, they sought for refund of the value of the stamp papers.
In regard to Section 47 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, the court had seen from the impugned order, that the applications had been rejected under Section 47(b) on the ground that document was signed or executed by a party to the sale transaction. However, sub-clause (3) of Clause (c) of Section 47 has not been looked into by the said authority and complete go-by is given to the same. It was the due satisfaction of the Collector which had to be recorded about there being no legal proceedings commenced in which the instrument could or would have been given or offered in evidence which is to be cancelled was the one which was required to be arrived at. In absence of the said exercise not been undertaken, this court is of the view that matter requires reconsideration by respondent No.6.
Decision:
The present appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.09.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.15237 of 2019 was set aside and impugned orders dated 08.11.2012 and 11.10.2012 was quashed and the matter is remitted back to 6th respondent for being considered afresh.
Case: GOVIND JIVABHAI SABHAYA SINCE DECD. THROUGH HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES vs STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1760 of 2022 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1430 of 2022
Coram: Justice Aravind Kumar and Ashutosh J. Shastri
Dated: 15.11.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
