JUDGMENT : RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jyoti Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. 1.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and with consent and request of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the petition was taken up for final consideration. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside order dated 31.01.2015 passed by respondent No.1– Chief Revenue Controlling Authority and further to direct the said authority to decide appeal of the petitioner preferred under Section 53(1) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 on merits. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 authority has refused to entertain the appeal on the ground the same was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 3. The appeal before respondent No.1 authority was directed against order dated 04.08.2014 passed by respondent No.2 Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Nadiad, who by his order, required the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.4,42,115/in respect of sale deed dated 05.04.2010. Under the said sale deed, vendors/owners Shri Dahyabhai Ravjibhai Patel, Navinbhai Ravjibhai Patel and Prafulbhai Ravjibhai Patel sold their agricultural land to one Dharmavirsinh Gangasinh Rajpurohit for a consideration of Rs.7,95,000/. The said sale deed was executed on 05.04.2010. It appears that on 02.07.2009, the said land owners had executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said land made subject matter of the said sale deed. 3.1 The Deputy Collector passed order on 04.08.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that the order was dispatched by Registered AD Post on 05.08.2014 and the same was received by the petitioner on 06.08.2014. The aggrieved petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No.1 fulfilling the condition of deposit of 25% amount of the deficit stamp duty as required under Section 53(1) for preferring the appeal. According to the appellate authority respondent No.1, the appeal was presented on 05.11.2014, therefore the same was beyond the period of 90 days from the date of the order of the Deputy Collector, hence not entertainable. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. J. A. Adeshra for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondent authorities. 5. Section 53 of the Act under which appeal lies against the order of the Collector before the Chief Controlling Authority reads as under, ”53. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. J. A. Adeshra for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondent authorities. 5. Section 53 of the Act under which appeal lies against the order of the Collector before the Chief Controlling Authority reads as under, ”53. Control of and statement of case to Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.(1) The powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapter III, Chapter IV and Chapter V and under clause (a) of the second proviso to section 27 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority: [Provided that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority shall not entertain an application made by a person under subsection (1) unless (a) such application is presented [within a period of ninety days] from the date of order of the Collector. (b) such person deposits twentyfive per cent of the amount of duty or as the case may be, amount of difference of duty payable by him in respect of subject matter of the instrument for which application has been made. (2) If any Collector, acting under section 31, [Section 32A] section 39 or section 40, feels doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case, and refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. (3) Such authority shall consider the case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to assess and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such decision.” 5.1 According to the above provisions, period of 90 days from the date of order of Collector is prescribed for preferring the appeal. Further condition is deposit of 25% of the amount of duty payable in respect of subject matter of the instrument for which the application is made before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. 5.2 The only point arising for consideration is whether the appeal of the petitioner was time barred. In this regard, recapitulating the relevant dates, the Deputy Collector passed order on 04.08.2014 asking the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. The said order was dispatched by Registered AD Post on 05.08.2014 and the same was received by the petitioner on 06.08.2014. The petitioner paid 25% amount of the deficit stamp duty on 03.11.2014. In this regard, recapitulating the relevant dates, the Deputy Collector passed order on 04.08.2014 asking the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. The said order was dispatched by Registered AD Post on 05.08.2014 and the same was received by the petitioner on 06.08.2014. The petitioner paid 25% amount of the deficit stamp duty on 03.11.2014. This is fortified and evidenced by challan dated 03.11.2014 showing payment of Rs.1,10,630/, copy of which is produced on record along with the petition. These dates are not in dispute. 5.3 Rule 7 of Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984 provides for manner of service of notice under Rule 4. This Rule becomes relevant with reference to date of dispatch of the order by the Collector to the petitioner, mentioned above. The relevant part of Rule 7, in particular sub rule (4), reads thus, “7. Manner of service of notice under rule 4 : Any notice or order under these rules shall be served in the following manner, namely: (1) In the case of any company, & & & (a) & & & (b) & & & (2) In the case of any firm, & & & (a) & & & (b) & & & (3) In the case of a family & & & (4) In the case of any individual person, the notice or order shall be served, (a) by delivering or tendering the notice or order to the person concerned or to his advocate or authorized agent ; or (b) by delivering or tendering the notice or order to some adult member of the family; or (c) by sending the notice or order to the person concerned by registered post with acknowledgment due; or (d) if none of the aforesaid modes of service is practicable, by affixing the notice or order in some conspicuous part of the last known place of residence or business of the person concerned.” 5.4 This court in judgment dated 30.03.2015 in Ritaben Kamleshbhai Mehta through power of attorney holder Devang Kamleshbhai Mehta vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 5422 of 2015 and cognate petitions, dealt with similar controversy and considered the question as to how the words from the date of order occurring in Section 53 should be construed purposefully. The court observed and held as under, ”16.3 The remedy of appeal or revision can be availed only if (and when) the person has knowledge about the order / decision (i.e. what, actually, is the decision and the reasons for the conclusion and decision by the authority) and not in absence of such knowledge. 17.2 When the person is not even aware that some decision is taken and order is passed and / or when the person is not aware about the actual decision i.e. contents of the order, he cannot effectively and meaningfully avail the remedy provided under the Act. Unless the person has the knowledge about the order the provisions / remedy will be meaningless. Therefore, the said provision i.e. Section 53 of the Act and more particularly the expression from the date of the order must be construed to make the provision and the remedy effective and meaningful and not in a manner which would restrict the period of said remedy's availability i.e. the period for which the remedy would be effectively available to the concerned and affected person. 19.1 The said view and decision of the authority ignores that for real, practical and actual operation of Section 53 of the Act, relevant factor is knowledge about the order. Therefore the relevant date for finding the answer to the question viz. whether the application (revision) is filed before expiry of prescribed period of limitation (i.e. 90 days) or not, would be the date on which the order is served / communicated to the concerned person.” 6. Coming back again to the facts of the present case, the date of receipt of the order of the Deputy Collector by the petitioner is 06.08.2014. The limitation period of 90 days provided under Section 53(1) of the Act would be required to be calculated from the date of the receipt of the order by the petitioner, that is, 06.08.2014, for this would be the date of knowledge of the petitioner. It is the date when the petitioner came to know about the order which is relevant for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation. The appellate authority– respondent No.1 has committed an error in treating the appeal as time barred on the ground that it was not filed within 90 days from the date of the order dated 04.08.2015. It is the date when the petitioner came to know about the order which is relevant for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation. The appellate authority– respondent No.1 has committed an error in treating the appeal as time barred on the ground that it was not filed within 90 days from the date of the order dated 04.08.2015. The appeal was preferred on 05.11.2014 which was within the period of 90 days reckoned from the date of communication of the order to the petitioner. 7. Even from another independent standpoint, the appeal of the petitioner has to be held within time. The petitioner paid 25% amount of the deficit stamp duty as per the condition of preferring appeal on 03.11.2014. This payment was made within 90 days from the date of the order, that is, from 04.08.2014. Challan reflects the date of payment of 25% amount of the deficit stamp duty. After making said deposit of 25%, the appeal memo could be presented along with proof of deposit. 8. In Limbabhai Ishwarbhai Jodhani vs. State of Gujarat & 2 being Special Civil Application No. 10924 of 2015 decided on 05.08.2015, it was held on similar facts as under, “6.2 Therefore, it could be said that for all practical purposes the appeal was presented within the period of 90 days. For the purpose of calculation of 90 days, date of depositing the amount of 25% could be reasonably taken in as much as the petitioner had submitted his appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Application of period of limitation has to be considered in meaningful manner as observed by this Court in Ritaben Kamleshbhai Mehta (supra). A mechanical and pedantic approach could only be self-defeating. It would also irrational. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioners appeal ought to have been accepted treated it to be within the period of limitation. 6.3 A meaningful construction of period of limitation under Section 53(1) would also mean that the period should be so construed as to save the limitation rather than oust the appellant on the ground of pedantic calculation of 90 days period. As the facts are obtained in the present case, the petitioner had virtually completed all the steps and formalities for filing the appeal including payment of 25% amount of deficit stamp duty which is the precondition mentioned in the provision itself for preparing the appeal. As the facts are obtained in the present case, the petitioner had virtually completed all the steps and formalities for filing the appeal including payment of 25% amount of deficit stamp duty which is the precondition mentioned in the provision itself for preparing the appeal. The appeal memo which was previously presented but not accepted for want of 25% amount paid, could be presented finally only when the Bank issued physical document certifying the payment of the amount. In these circumstances, taking the date of challan and the amount paid as effective date was reasonable and proper approval to treat the appeal within time.” 9. As a result, the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to treat the appeal of the petitioner beyond limitation period and refusing to accept the appeal is hereby set aside. It has to be held that the appeal of the petitioner was filed within the period of limitation of 90 days. The communications-cum-order dated 31.01.2015 of respondent No.1 Chief Revenue Controlling Authority is set aside. Respondent No.1 Chief Controlling Authority shall proceed to decide the appeal against the order dated 04.08.2014 of the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Nadiad in accordance with law and merits and complete the exercise expeditiously. 10. It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the case. 11. This petition is allowed to the extent aforesaid. Rule is made absolute to the said extent.