Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 567 (KER)

Wilson Chakkappan, Ernakulam v. Tahsildar, Aluva

2012-06-22

P.N.RAVINDRAN

body2012
Judgment: 1. The petitioner purchased a parcel of land, 22.10 ares in extent, situate in Sy.No.142/7 of Manjapra Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District in a sale conducted on 17.9.2009 under section 49 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 at the instance of the Kerala Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation” for short). The Corporation had lent money to Sri. K.C. Joseph, to whom the land belonged, for establishing a rice mill. When he defaulted repayment of the loan, the Corporation took steps to recover the amount advanced by it, by recourse to the provisions in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act” for short). Thereupon, the aforesaid parcel of land was attached, brought to sale and sold in public auction on 17.9.2009. The petitioner who quoted Rs.30,75,000/- was the successful bidder in the auction. 2. As per the terms of the sale proclamation, the petitioner remitted the sum of Rs.4,62,000/- on 17.9.2009 itself and the balance sum of Rs.26,13,000/- on 14.10.2009. The Deputy Collector (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram, confirmed the sale as per Ext.P1 order dated 21.6.2010. A few days later, the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Ernakulam sent Ext.P2 letter dated 25.6.2010 to the petitioner informing him that the sale in his favour has been confirmed and that he should within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter, produce stamp papers of the value representing 6% of the bid amount. The petitioner was also informed that if later, the stamp duty paid is found to be insufficient, he will have to make good the difference in the stamp duty. 3. As directed in Ext.P2 letter, the petitioner produced stamp papers of the aggregate value of Rs.1,85,000/- (namely 7 stamp papers of the value of Rs.25,000/- each and one stamp paper of the value of Rs.10,000/-) before the Deputy Collector (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram. Thereupon Ext.P3 sale certificate was executed on 26.7.2010, but it was not handed over to the petitioner for registration. After the sale was held on 17.9.2009, the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Ernakulam sent a letter dated 17.9.2009 to the defaulter informing him that if he has any objection to the sale, he may move the Deputy Collector (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram within 30 days from 17.9.2009 under Section 52 or 53 of the Act. After the sale was held on 17.9.2009, the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Ernakulam sent a letter dated 17.9.2009 to the defaulter informing him that if he has any objection to the sale, he may move the Deputy Collector (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram within 30 days from 17.9.2009 under Section 52 or 53 of the Act. The defaulter thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.29824 of 2009 in this Court challenging the letter dated 17.9.2009 and seeking a direction to the respondents therein to conduct a re-auction. He thereafter filed a representation dated 15.10.2009 before the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Ernakulam and the District Collector, Ernakulam objecting to the sale held on 17.9.2009. In that representation, he contended that the amount realised in the sale is negligible and it is less than the upset prize. In the said representation he requested that the sale may not be confirmed. W.P. (C) No.29824 of 2009 was disposed of by judgment delivered on 22.10.2009 with a direction that in the event of the defaulter filing a proper application before the Deputy Collector (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram within one week, the said authority shall consider it and dispose it of in accordance with law, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the application. This Court also directed the Deputy Collector not to confirm the sale if not already confirmed, till a decision is taken by the Deputy Collector. 4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.29824 of 2009, the defaulter submitted a representation dated 26.10.2009 before the Deputy Collector (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram. The Deputy Collector considered the said representation and rejected the request for re-auction. The Deputy Collector however gave the defaulter a chance to submit a fresh application under section 52 of the Act. A letter dated 2.11.2009 was thereupon sent to the defaulter, wherein he was called upon to remit the bid amount of Rs.30,75,000/-and 5% of the said amount together with interest and costs within ten days from the date of receipt of the letter, failing which he was informed that the sale held on 17.9.2009 will be confirmed. The defaulter thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.34221 of 2009 in this Court challenging the letter dated 2.11.2009 which was produced and marked as Ext.P7 therein. The defaulter thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.34221 of 2009 in this Court challenging the letter dated 2.11.2009 which was produced and marked as Ext.P7 therein. W.P.(C) No.34221 of 2009 was disposed of by judgment delivered on 30.11.2009 reserving liberty with the defaulter to file a revision petition before the appropriate authority. This Court directed that if such a revision petition accompanied by a petition seeking interim stay is filed by the defaulter, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the competent authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, either on the revision petition or on the interlocutory application within a period of two weeks thereafter. This Court also directed that in order to enable the defaulter to move the revisional authority, further proceedings for confirmation of the sale shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. 5. Pursuant thereto, the defaulter moved the Land Revenue Commissioner by filing a revision petition dated 22.1.2010 and it was rejected by order dated 27.5.2010. The defaulter thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.21252 of 2010 in this Court challenging that order. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 13.7.2010, relegating the defaulter to the revisional remedy available to him under section 83(1) of the Act. This Court also directed that in order to enable the defaulter to pursue the alternative remedy, further proceedings pursuant to the sale in favour of the petitioner herein, who was the third respondent in that writ petition, shall be kept in abeyance. As directed by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, the defaulter moved the Government by filing a revision petition. The Government issued notice to the defaulter, the petitioner herein and others and passed Ext.P5 order dated 17.1.2011 upholding the sale held on 17.9.2009. The revision petition filed by the defaulter was consequently rejected. Thereupon, the original of Ext.P3 sale certificate was handed over to the petitioner on 18.1.2011 and he produced it before the Sub Registrar, Angamaly for registration on 21.1.2011. The Sub Registrar refused to register the sale certificate on the ground that as it was not presented for registration within four months from the date of execution (four months from 26.7.2010), the petitioner should have paid ten times the registration charges as penalty and as it was not paid, the sale certificate cannot be registered. 6. The Sub Registrar refused to register the sale certificate on the ground that as it was not presented for registration within four months from the date of execution (four months from 26.7.2010), the petitioner should have paid ten times the registration charges as penalty and as it was not paid, the sale certificate cannot be registered. 6. The defaulter had in the meanwhile filed W.P.(C) No.3821 of 2011 in this Court challenging Ext.P5 Government order and other related orders. After Ext.P6 order was issued, the petitioner moved the Deputy Collector (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram requesting him to execute a fresh sale certificate in the place of Ext.P3. He also caused a notice dated 1.2.2011 to be issued. When no action was taken in the matter, he filed W.P.(C) No.11564 of 2011 in this Court seeking the following relief: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus, other writ or order or direction compelling the 2nd respondent to execute fresh sale certificate in the place of Exhibit.P3 certificate without any defects which is mentioned in the writ petition enabling the petitioner to register the same without any difficulties or hardship.” 7. W.P.(C) Nos.3821 of 2011 and 11564 of 2011 were heard and disposed of by Ext.P7 common judgment delivered on 26.5.2011. W.P.(C) No.3821 of 2011 filed by the defaulter was dismissed and W.P.(C) No.11564 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram, to issue a fresh sale certificate in the place of Ext.P3, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and to return the original of Ext.P3 after cancelling it, to enable the petitioner to take steps to obtain refund of the stamp duty in accordance with law. Though the defaulter filed W.A.No.964 of 2011 challenging Ext.P7 judgment dismissing W.P.(C) No.3821 of 2011, it was dismissed by judgment delivered on 19.7.2011. 8. In the meanwhile, the Kerala Financial Corporation executed the original of Ext.P8 sale certificate dated 2.7.2011 and it was duly registered in the Sub Registrar’s Office, Angamaly. The Kerala Financial Corporation also returned to the petitioner the original of Ext.P3 sale certificate after cancelling it, as directed in Ext.P7 judgment. The petitioner thereupon produced it before the Tahsildar, Aluva Taluk, along with Ext.P9 representation dated 22.8.2011 wherein he sought refund of the stamp duty of Rs.1,85,000/-. The Kerala Financial Corporation also returned to the petitioner the original of Ext.P3 sale certificate after cancelling it, as directed in Ext.P7 judgment. The petitioner thereupon produced it before the Tahsildar, Aluva Taluk, along with Ext.P9 representation dated 22.8.2011 wherein he sought refund of the stamp duty of Rs.1,85,000/-. By Ext.P10 letter dated 19.10.2011, the Tahsildar informed the petitioner that as the application for refund of stamp duty was not made within six months from the date of issue, the request for refund cannot be considered. The petitioner was called upon to take back the original of Ext.P3 sale certificate and to give a receipt in token of having received it back from the Tahsildar, Aluva Taluk. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P10 and seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P10 and quash the same by issue of a writ or certiorari or other writ order or direction; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order or direction compelling the respondent to refund the stamp duty on Exhibit P3 to the petitioner within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court. Relying on sections 47 and 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Stamp Act”) it is contended that as the application for refund of stamp duty was submitted within six months after the execution of the substituted instrument, namely Ext.P8 sale certificate, the stand taken by the respondent in Ext.P10 cannot be sustained. 9. The respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 24.1.2012. Paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, are extracted below:- “3. It is submitted that the petitioner produced the original of the cancelled sale certificate dated 26.07.2010 along with an application dated 22.08.2011 for refund of the stamp duty. It is submitted that this respondent by letter dated 19.10.2011 No.D2-5590/11 informed the petitioner that his application for refund of stamp duty cannot be considered since the stamp papers were submitted for refund after a period of one year. It is submitted that the sale certificate was executed on 26.07.2010 and the application for refund was submitted on 22.08.2011. It is submitted that this respondent by letter dated 19.10.2011 No.D2-5590/11 informed the petitioner that his application for refund of stamp duty cannot be considered since the stamp papers were submitted for refund after a period of one year. It is submitted that the sale certificate was executed on 26.07.2010 and the application for refund was submitted on 22.08.2011. As per Section 48(3) of the Kerala Stamp Act, application for refund of the stamp duty must be made in the case of Stamp Paper in which an instrument has been executed by any parties thereto, within six months after the date of instrument. If it is not dated, within six months after execution thereof by the person by whom it was first or alone executed. 4. It is submitted that proviso (b) to section 48 of the Stamp Act can be applied and time has to be reckoned from 28.06.2010 or 26.07.2010, the date of purchase of stamp paper and the date of execution of the instrument respectively. There were no unavoidable circumstances due to which the instrument could not be given up to be cancelled in this case, hence provision (3) to Section 48 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that unavoidable circumstances have not be specifically stated in proviso (b) to section 48 of the Stamp Act.” 10. The main contention raised by the respondent is that in the case of an instrument which has been executed by any of the parties thereto, the application for refund of the stamp duty has to be made within six months from the date of the instrument and if it is not dated, within six months after execution thereof by the person by whom it was first or alone executed. It is also contended that the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Stamp Act has no application to the case on hand. 11. I heard Sri. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Smt. P. Maya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. Sri. It is also contended that the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Stamp Act has no application to the case on hand. 11. I heard Sri. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Smt. P. Maya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. Sri. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the original of Ext.P3 sale certificate, which was executed on stamp paper of the value of Rs.1,85,000/- became useless in consequence of Ext.P3 sale certificate whereby the transaction intended to be effected by Ext.P3 was effected between the same parties and the stamp duty paid on that instrument is the same stamp duty as that paid on Ext.P3 sale certificate and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to make an application for relief under section 47 of the Stamp Act. The learned Senior Counsel contended that it was on account of unavoidable circumstances that Ext.P3 instrument for which Ext.P8 instrument was substituted, could not be given up for cancellation within the period of six months stipulated in sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Stamp Act and therefore, in terms of proviso (b) to sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Stamp Act, the application made by the petitioner within six months after the execution of the substituted document (Ext.P8 sale certificate) should have been entertained and disposed of in accordance with section 47 of the Stamp Act. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that there was no unavoidable circumstance and had the petitioner acted with due diligence in view of the writ petitions filed by the defaulter, he could have given up Ext.P3 sale certificate to be cancelled within the period of six months from the date of its execution and therefore, as the petitioner himself has to be blamed for not given up Ext.P3 sale certificate for cancellation of the stamp paper within the period of six months, the rejection o his request for refund of stamp duty is in order. 12. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The sale which led to the issuance of Ext.P3 sale certificate was held on 17.9.2009. The petitioner deposited one third of the bid amount of Rs.30,75,000/-, namely the sum of Rs.4,62,000/-on 17.9.2009. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The sale which led to the issuance of Ext.P3 sale certificate was held on 17.9.2009. The petitioner deposited one third of the bid amount of Rs.30,75,000/-, namely the sum of Rs.4,62,000/-on 17.9.2009. He remitted the balance amount of Rs.26,13,000/- on 14.10.2009. The sale in his favour was confirmed on 21.6.2010 and thereupon on his producing stamp papers of the value of Rs.1,85,000/-, the original o Ext.P3 sale certificate was executed on 26.7.2010. The stamp papers on which the original of Ext.P3 sale certificate was executed were purchased on 28.6.2010. Challenging the sale held on 17.9.2009 the defaulter had filed an application before the Deputy Collector (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Trivandrum, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.29824 of 2009 alleging that the sale is vitiated by fraud and irregularity. That application was rejected by order passed on 2.11.2009. The defaulter thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.34221 of 2009 in this Court wherein he challenged the said order. That writ petition was disposed of by judgment delivered on 30.11.2009 reserving liberty with the defaulter to move the revisional authority. This Court also directed that if a revision petition accompanied by an application for interim stay is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the revisional authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders either on the revision petition or on the interlocutory application within a period of two weeks thereafter. This Court also directed that in order to enable the defaulter to move the revisional authority, further proceedings for confirmation of the sale in question shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. Pursuant thereto, the defaulter moved the Land Revenue Commissioner by filing a revision petition dated 22.1.2010. On that application the Land Revenue commissioner passed an interim order on 1.2.2010. Thereafter, by order passed on 27.5.2010, the Land Revenue Commissioner rejected the revision petition. The defaulter thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.21252 of 2010 in this Court challenging the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Land Revenue Commissioner. W.P.(C) No.21252 of 2010 was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 13.7.2010 relegating the defaulter to the revisional remedy available to him before the Government under section 83(2) of the Act. The defaulter thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.21252 of 2010 in this Court challenging the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Land Revenue Commissioner. W.P.(C) No.21252 of 2010 was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 13.7.2010 relegating the defaulter to the revisional remedy available to him before the Government under section 83(2) of the Act. This Court also stayed further proceedings pursuant to the sale in favour of the petitioner herein, for a period of one month so as to enable the defaulter to move the Government in revision. It was in the interregnum that Ext.P3 sale certificate was executed on 26.7.2010. In view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.21252 of 2010, the sale certificate could not be registered. As directed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.21252 of 2010, the defaulter moved the Government by filing a revision petition. On that revision petition the Government passed an order staying further proceedings in the matter. Later, by Ext.P5 order passed on 17.1.2011, the Government rejected the revision petition and vacated the order of stay passed by it. Therefore, during the period from 26.7.2010 to 17.1.2011 the sale certificate could not be registered. The defaulter did not accept the Government order dated 17.1.2011, rejecting the revision petition filed by him from the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Land Revenue Commissioner. Instead, he filed W.P.(C) No.3821 of 2011 in this Court challenging the said order. He also sought a direction to the respondents to conduct a re-auction. 13. After the Government passed Ext.P5 order on 17.1.2011 rejecting the revision petition filed by the defaulter, the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Kochi handed over the original of Ext.P3 to the petitioner on 18.1.2011 for registration. The petitioner presented the said document before the Sub Registrar, Angamali on 21.1.2011 for registration. The Sub-Registrar declined to register the document for the reasons stated in Ext.P6, one of which was that it was not presented for registration within four months from the date of execution and the other was that for belated registration, the petitioner should have paid 10 times the registration charges as penalty. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation dated 25.1.2011 before the Deputy Collector (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram requesting him to execute a fresh sale certificate. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation dated 25.1.2011 before the Deputy Collector (Revenue Recovery), Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram requesting him to execute a fresh sale certificate. The Deputy Collector thereupon invited the petitioner to attend a hearing on 7.2.2011 to consider his request for execution of another sale certificate. The petitioner appeared and offered to purchase the necessary stamp papers to have a fresh sale certificated executed and requested for execution of a fresh sale certificate. When no action was taken, he filed W.P.(C) No.11564 of 2011 in this Court. W.P.(C) No.3821 of 2011 filed by the defaulter challenging Ext.p5 Government order and W.P.(C) No.11564 off 2011 filed by the petitioner wherein he had sought a direction to the respondents to execute a fresh sale certificate in the place of Ext.P3, were heard and disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 26.5.2011. WP(C) No.3821 of 2011 was dismissed repelling the challenge to the order confirming the sale and the appellate and revisional orders passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Government. As regards W.P.(C) No.11564 of 2011, this Court in Ext.P7 judgment held as follows: 7. With regard to W.P.(C) No.11564 of 2011, going by the sequence of events, as mentioned herein before, it is seen that there is absolutely no lapse on the part of the petitioner with regard to the alleged delay in submitting the sale certificate. Though Ext.P3 sale certificate is dated 26.7.2010, it was actually handed over to the petitioner only on 18.1.2011, which pleading is not controverted in any manner. Interim orders of stay granted by this Court as well as the Government, are also stated as having contributed the delay in handling over the sale certificate. In any view of the matter, it is settled law that, if any prejudice has been caused to any party to the proceedings before this Court, it shall not be taken to the detriment of the party concerned, in view of the principle behind the maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Bravabit (Act of Court shall prejudice no man). 8. In any view of the matter, it is settled law that, if any prejudice has been caused to any party to the proceedings before this Court, it shall not be taken to the detriment of the party concerned, in view of the principle behind the maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Bravabit (Act of Court shall prejudice no man). 8. In the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to issue, a fresh sale certificate in place of Ext.P3 to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and return Ext.P3 after cancellation of the same, so as to enable the petitioner to take further steps for refund of the stamp duty in accordance with law. 14. This Court held that though Ext.P3 sale certificate was executed on 26.7.2010, it was actually handed over to the petitioner only on 18.1.2011 and that as the delay in handing over the sale certificate was occasioned on account of an order of stay passed by this Court as well as by the Government, a fresh sale certificate in place of Ext.P3 sale certificate should be executed and the original of Ext.P3 sale certificate should be returned after cancellation to the petitioner so as to enable him to take steps to obtain refund of the stamp duty. It was thereafter that the original of Ext.P8 sale certificate was executed and registered on 2.7.2011 conveying the property sold on 17.9.2009 to the petitioner. He thereafter moved the Tahsildar for refund of the stamp duty paid on Ext.P3 sale certificate by submitting Ext.P9 application dated 22.8.2011 and that was rejected by the impugned letter on the ground that the application for refund was not made within six months from the date on which the stamp paper was purchased. 15. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the stand taken by the respondent that the application for refund of stamp duty paid on Ext.P3 sale certificate is belated is sustainable in law. Section 47 of the Stamp Act which deals with applications for refund of stamp duty is extracted below for easy reference. 47. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the stand taken by the respondent that the application for refund of stamp duty paid on Ext.P3 sale certificate is belated is sustainable in law. Section 47 of the Stamp Act which deals with applications for refund of stamp duty is extracted below for easy reference. 47. Allowance for spoiled stamps.-Subject to such rules as may be made by the Government as to the evidence to be required, or the enquiry to be made, the Collector may, on application made, within the period prescribed in Section 48, and if he is satisfied as to the facts, make allowance for impressed stamps spoiled in the cases hereinafter mentioned, namely:- (a) the stamp on any paper inadvertently and undesignedly spoiled, obliterated or by error in writing or any other means rendered unfit for the purpose intended before any instrument written thereon is executed by any person; (b) the stamp on any document which is written out wholly or in part, but which is not signed or executed by any party thereto; (c) the stamp used for an instrument executed by any party thereto which – (1) has been afterwards found to be absolutely void in law from the beginning; (2) has been afterwards found unfit, by reason of any error or mistake therein, for the purpose originally intended; (3) by reason of the death of any person by whom it is necessary that it should be executed, without having executed the same, or of the refusal of any such person to execute the same, cannot be completed so as to effect the intended transaction in the form proposed; (4) for want of the execution thereof by some material party, and his inability or refusal to sign the same, is in fact incomplete and insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended; (5) by reason of the refusal of any person to act under the same, or to advance any money intended to be thereby secured or by the refusal or non-acceptance of any office thereby granted, totally falls of the intended purposes; (6) becomes useless in consequence of the transaction intended to be thereby effected, being effected by some other instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value; (7) is defiant in value and the transaction intended to be thereby effected has been effected by some other instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value; (8) is inadvertently and undesignedly spoiled, and in lieu whereof another instrument made between the same parties and for the same purpose is executed and duly stamped: Provided that, in the case of an executed instrument, no legal proceeding has been commenced in which the instrument could or would have been given or offered in evidence and that the instrument is given up to be cancelled. 16. Section 47 of the Stamp Act stipulates that subject to such rules as may be made by the Government as to the evidence to be required, or the enquiry to be made, the Collector may, on application made, within the period prescribed in section 48, and if he is satisfied as to the facts, make allowance for impressed stamps spoiled in the cases mentioned therein. Rules 18 and 19 of the Kerala Stamp Rules, 1960 are the relevant rules framed by the Government in that regard. Clause (a) of Section 47 of the Stamp Act empowers the Collector to make allowance for impressed stamps on any paper inadvertently and undesignedly spoiled, obliterated or by error in writing or any other means rendered unfit for the purpose intended before any instrument written thereon, is executed by any person. Clause (a) of section 47 of the Stamp Act applies only to cases where the document is not executed by any person. In the instant case it has no application for the reason that Ext.P3 sale certificate was admittedly executed by the Deputy Collector. Clause (b) of section 47 of the Stamp Act applies to a document which is written out wholly or in part, but which is not signed or executed by any party thereto. For the reasons stated earlier, clause (b) also has no application to the instant case. Then the question is whether the document in case on hand falls within any of the items under clause (c) of section 47 of the Stamp Act. Items (1) to (5) under clause (c) of section 47 of the Stamp Act have admittedly no application to the case on hand. Items (7) and (8) under clause (c) also have no application. As per item (6) of clause (c) of section 47 of the Stamp Act, allowance can be made for stamps used for an instrument executed by any party thereto which becomes useless in consequence of the transaction intended to be thereby effected, being effected by some other instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value. In the instant case, Ext.P3 sale certificate was not accepted for registration for the reasons set out in Ext.P6. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, Ext.P8 sale certificate was executed on 2.7.2011 and it was duly registered. In the instant case, Ext.P3 sale certificate was not accepted for registration for the reasons set out in Ext.P6. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, Ext.P8 sale certificate was executed on 2.7.2011 and it was duly registered. The same stamp duty was paid on the original of Ext.P3 sale certificate namely Rs.1,85,000/- was paid on Ext.P8 sale certificate as well. It can thus be said that as a consequence of the transaction intended to be effected by Ext.P3 sale certificate being effected by Ext.P8 sale certificate executed between the same parties, for all purposes Ext.P3 sale certificate has become useless as far as the parties are concerned. The same stamp duty as was paid on Ext.P3 was paid on Ext.P8 sale certificate. On the terms of item (6) or clause (c) of section 47 of the Stamp Act allowance can be made on stamps used in such an instrument. The respondent does not dispute the said fact. He has no case that the petitioner is not entitled to apply under section 47 of the Stamp Act for refund of stamp duty. The stand taken by him is that the application is belated as it was not filed within six months from the date on which the stamp paper on which Ext.P3 sale certificate was executed, was purchased. 17. Section 48 of the Stamp Act which prescribes the time limit for filing applications for relief under section 47 is extracted below for easy reference. 48. 17. Section 48 of the Stamp Act which prescribes the time limit for filing applications for relief under section 47 is extracted below for easy reference. 48. Application for relief under Section 47 when to be made.- The application for relief under Section 47 shall be made within the following periods, that is to say- (1) In the cases mentioned in clause (c) (5), within two months of the date of the instrument; (2) in the case of a stamped paper on which no instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto with in six months after the stamp has been spoiled; (3) in the case of a stamped paper in which an instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto, within six months after the date of the instrument or, if it is not dated, within six months after execution thereof by the person by whom it was first or alone executed: Provided that- (a) when the spoiled instrument has been for sufficient reasons sent out of the State, the application may be made within six months after it has been received back in the State. (b) when, from unavoidable circumstances, any instrument for which another instrument has been substituted, cannot be given up to be cancelled within the aforesaid period, the application may be made within six months after the date of execution of the substituted instrument. 18. Section 48 of the Stamp Act sets out the period within which, applications for relief under Section 47 have to be filed. In sub-section (1) of Section 48 it is stipulated that an application for relief under section 47 has to filed, in respect of cases mentioned in clause (c) (5), within two months from the date of the instrument. As stated earlier clause (c) (5) of section 47 of the Stamp Act has no application in the instant case. Therefore the period of limitation prescribed in sub-section (1) of section 48 of the Stamp Act has no application. Sub-section (2) of section 48 of the Stamp Act stipulates that an application for relief under section 47 shall be made, in the case of a stamped paper on which no instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto, within six months after the stamp has been spoiled. Sub-section (2) of section 48 of the Stamp Act stipulates that an application for relief under section 47 shall be made, in the case of a stamped paper on which no instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto, within six months after the stamp has been spoiled. In the instant case, the instrument was executed on the stamp paper and therefore sub-section (2) of section 48 of the Stamp Act can have no application. Sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Stamp Act stipulates that an application for relief under section 47 shall be made, in the case a stamped paper in which an instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto, within six months after the date of the instrument or, if it is not dated, within six months after execution thereof, by the person by whom it was first or alone executed. Proviso (a) to sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Stamp Act however stipulates that when the spoiled instrument has been for sufficient reasons sent out of the State, the application may be made within six months after it has been received back in the State. In proviso (b) it is stipulated that when, from unavoidable circumstances, any instrument for which another instrument has been substituted, cannot be given up to be cancelled within the aforesaid period (namely six months) the application may be made within six months after the date of execution of the substituted instrument. 19. In the instance case, though Ext.P3 sale certificate was executed on 27.6.2010, it could not be acted upon and registered in view of the interim orders of stay passed by this Court and later by the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Government. It was only after Ext.P5 order was passed by the Government on 17.1.2011 that the original of Ext.P3 sale certificate was handed over to the petitioner for registration. When he presented it for registration it was returned on the ground that it was not presented for registration within four months from the date of execution and was not accompanied by the prescribed penalty. The period of six months stipulated in subsection (3) of section 48 of the Stamp Act expired in the case of Ext.P3 sale certificate on 26.1.2011. The period of six months stipulated in subsection (3) of section 48 of the Stamp Act expired in the case of Ext.P3 sale certificate on 26.1.2011. As stated earlier, it was handed over to the petitioner for first time for presentation before the Sub Registrar only on 18.1.2011 and it was presented for registration before the Registrar on 21.1.2011 on which date it was returned after declining to register it along with Ext.P6 letter dated 21.1.2011. The petitioner thereafter moved the Deputy Collector who had executed Ext.P3 sale certificate for a fresh sale certificate and thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.11564 of 2011 in this Court. The said writ petition was heard and disposed of along with W.P.(C) No.3821 of 2011 filed by the defaulter challenging Ext.P6 order and as stated earlier, the writ petition filed by the defaulter was dismissed and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to issue a fresh sale certificate in lieu of Ext.P3 sale certificate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was only with the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.3821 of 2011 on 26.5.2011 that Ext.P5 order passed by the Government on 17.1.2011 upholding the revenue sale held on 17.9.2009 attained finality. Till that date, the validity of the sale held on 17.9.2009 which in turn led to the issuance of Ext.P3 sale certificate was under challenge. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not prevented from unavoidable circumstances from giving up Ext.P3 sale certificate to be cancelled within a period of six months from the date on which it was executed. As held by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, it was because of the interim orders passed by this Court as well as Government and the delay in handing over the original of the sale certificate to the petitioner, that he was prevented from giving up Ext.P3 sale certificate to be cancelled within six months. As stated earlier, the original of Ext.P3 sale certificate was handed over to the petitioner only on 18.1.2011, the day after Ext.P5 order was passed. He presented it for registration on 21.1.2011 and it was returned along with Ext.P6 letter. Later, the transaction was effected by Ext.P8 sale certificate and Ext.P3 was cancelled. As stated earlier, the original of Ext.P3 sale certificate was handed over to the petitioner only on 18.1.2011, the day after Ext.P5 order was passed. He presented it for registration on 21.1.2011 and it was returned along with Ext.P6 letter. Later, the transaction was effected by Ext.P8 sale certificate and Ext.P3 was cancelled. In such circumstances, it is clear that it was due to unavoidable circumstances, beyond the control of the petitioner that he was not in a position to give up Ext.P3 sale certificate to be cancelled within a period of six months from the date on which it was executed. The respondent should have in my opinion applied proviso (b) to sub-section (3) of section 48 of the Stamp Act and allowed the application for refund of the stamp duty paid on Ext.P3 sale certificate. For the reasons stated above, I allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P10 and direct the respondent to grant refund of the stamp duty paid on the original of Ext.P3 sale certificate by treating the application for refund as one filed within time. Needful in the matter shall be done and the admissible amount refunded to the petitioner expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from the date on which he produces a certified copy of this judgment before the respondent. The parties shall bear their respective costs.