Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 713 (MP)

Pankaj v. State of M. P.

2016-08-19

ALOK ARADHE

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia assails the validity of the orders dated 31.7.2013 and 5.3.2014 passed by the District Registrar/Collector of Stamp, Vidisha and the Board of Revenue, Gwalior respectively. 3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are briefly stated that the petitioner had purchased non-judicial stamp papers amounting to Rs.4,81,570/- through his counsel on 7.12.2012 for the purposes of execution of the sale deed, however, on account of the dispute between the petitioner and the seller, the sale deed could not be registered though the same were signed by the parties, thereupon the petitioner filed an application on 19.12.2012 for refund of the stamp money. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Collector of Stamps on 31.7.2013 and the aforesaid order was affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 5.3.2014. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the orders passed by the Collector of Stamps as well as by the Board of Revenue are contrary to the Division Bench decision reported in the case of Daryanamal v. State of M.P. and others [2001 RN 201], as the authorities have failed to appreciate that section 50(3) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter for short referred to as “Act”) would be applicable to the case of the petitioner and the application for refund of stamp money may be made within a period of six months. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed the application within a period of six months. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General was unable to point out from the record as to why the provisions of section 50(3) of the Act would not apply in the case of the petitioner. 6. I have considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed, however, the same was not registered, therefore in view of section 50(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, the period, within which the application for refund of stamp money could have been filed, was six months. 6. I have considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed, however, the same was not registered, therefore in view of section 50(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, the period, within which the application for refund of stamp money could have been filed, was six months. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed the application for refund of stamp money within a period of three months, however, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has neither been considered by the Collector of Stamps nor the Board of Revenue, therefore the impugned orders dated 31.7.2013 and 5.3.2014 passed by the District Registrar/Collector of Stamps, Vidisha and the Board of Revenue, Gwalior respectively suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record, which are accordingly hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of stamp money to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.