JUDGMENT : B. Amit Sthalekar, J. Heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 16.06.2006 passed by respondent no. 2, Board of Revenue, U.P. Camp, Meerut, order dated 20.11.2004 passed by respondent no. 3, Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Ghaziabad and order dated 15.07.2002, passed by respondent no. 4, Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut arising out of proceedings under section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act, 1899). 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Housing Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Registration Act, 1965 in the name of Rail Vihar Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. and is engaged in the business of promoting and building of houses. The petitioner purchased land from various persons and with regard to payment of stamp duty its case is that it was not liable for payment of stamp duty as the State Government had issued a notification in 1979 under section 9(1) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 granting housing societies exemption from payment of stamp duty. Accordingly, the petitioner-society filed Writ Petition No. 12833 of 1991 in which there was an interim order directing the petitioner society to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 6 Lacs but subsequently by order dated 06.05.1992 the writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of High Court. Thereafter, stamp suit no. 530/99-2000 was instituted for payment of stamp duty in which an order was passed on 11.02.2002 determining the deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 49,590/- with a direction to the Collector Stamp to determine as to whether the petitioner had deposited the sum of Rs. 6 Lacs and what would be the stamp duty payable and what would be the rate applicable to the residential property since the petitioner was a housing society and the land had been purchased for constructing houses. Upon remand, the stamp authority passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2004 determining the stamp duty as well as deficiency of stamp duty payable by the petitioner-society. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2004, the petitioner preferred stamp appeal, which has been dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue by its order dated 16.06.2006. 4. Upon remand, the stamp authority passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2004 determining the stamp duty as well as deficiency of stamp duty payable by the petitioner-society. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2004, the petitioner preferred stamp appeal, which has been dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue by its order dated 16.06.2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sale deeds were of the year 1991-92 whereas the Stamp Suit No. 530/1999-2000 was initiated by the respondents sometime in the year 2000 and, therefore, the entire proceedings were time barred. He further submits that this plea of limitation was taken by him when the first revisional order was passed and it has been referred to by the revisional authority in its order dated 15.07.2002 but it has been rejected on the ground that cognizance of the case was taken on 21.09.1995 whereas the sale deed was of 15.11.1991 and, therefore, the stamp duty was within the period of four years and therefore, within limitation. 5. In my opinion, this appears to be factually incorrect because the Stamp Suit No. 530/1999-2000 itself was instituted more than seven years after the sale deed. 6. Learned standing counsel submits that there was delay because petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 12833 of 1991 in the High Court. 7. This submission is also not correct for the reason that the Writ Petition No. 12833 of 1991 was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 06.05.1992 and from that date also till the order of 1999, more than 7 years had already passed. 8. In this view of the matter, the proceedings, having been initiated, were beyond the period of four years as prescribed in Sub-Section 3 of section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and therefore, the entire proceedings were barred by limitation. 9. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders dated 16.06.2006 passed by respondent no. 2, Board of Revenue, U.P. Camp, Meerut, order dated 20.11.2004 passed by respondent no. 3, Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Ghaziabad and order dated 15.07.2002, passed by respondent no. 4, Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut are absolutely illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and are accordingly quashed. 10. The writ petition is allowed. 11. 2, Board of Revenue, U.P. Camp, Meerut, order dated 20.11.2004 passed by respondent no. 3, Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Ghaziabad and order dated 15.07.2002, passed by respondent no. 4, Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut are absolutely illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and are accordingly quashed. 10. The writ petition is allowed. 11. In case any amount has been deposited by the petitioner towards deficiency of stamp duty under the interim orders of this Court, the same shall be refunded to him by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.