ORDER : 1. This appeal, which is filed under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the common order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos. 16333 of 2016 to 16335 of 2016, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the captioned petition. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.K. Trivedi for the appellant-original petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rohan Yagnik for the respondents. 3. It is the case of the appellant-original petitioner that an Agreement for Sale with possession was executed by the petitioner on 16.10.1995 for purchase of the land bearing Plot No. 17 admeasuring approximately 538.65 sq. meters with plinth level construction in the land bearing Final Plot No. 83 Paiki, Town Planning Scheme No. 12 (Original Survey Nos. 634, 635A, 635B, 6362 and 638 Paiki) of Village Adajan, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat. It is stated that at the time of execution, the consideration shown in the said document is Rs. 6,43,990/-. It is stated that the petitioner paid the stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 90,170/- on the said document. Thereafter, the petitioner got executed the registered Sale Deed No. 5810 dated 13.09.2001 and finally purchased the land. It is further stated that as per the Amnesty Scheme 2007 declared by the State Government, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 1,04,790/- towards deficit stamp duty with penalty by Challan No. 42 dated 05.09.2007 and, therefore, respondent No. 2 affixed Certificate on Page No. 32 of the registered Agreement for Sale with possession to that effect. 3.1 The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 28.07.2011 wherein the petitioner was asked to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,12,058/-. The petitioner submitted reply to the said notice on 11.10.2011 wherein it was pointed out that the petitioner has already paid deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,04,790/-. In spite of that, respondent No. 2 passed an order on 07/09.03.2012 whereby the petitioner is asked to make payment of Rs. 1,11,808/- towards deficit stamp duty and Rs. 250/- towards penalty. In spite of that, respondent No. 2 passed an order on 07/09.03.2012 whereby the petitioner is asked to make payment of Rs. 1,11,808/- towards deficit stamp duty and Rs. 250/- towards penalty. It is a case of the petitioner that the said order was not served to the petitioner and for the first time, he came to know about the said order on 14.12.2015, therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 53 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 (‘the Act’ for short) before respondent No. 3. However, respondent No. 3 dismissed the said appeal by an order dated 18.03.2016 on the ground that there is a delay of 1461 days in preferring the appeal and there is no provision for condonation of delay under Section 53(1) of the Act. 3.2 The petitioner, therefore, preferred the captioned petition before this Court. However, the learned Single Judge by an impugned order dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner had filed the appeal after a period of 1461 days and there is no explanation for condonation of such delay. Thus, without going into the merits of the case, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. The appellant-original petitioner, therefore, preferred this appeal. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi for the appellant-original petitioner has mainly contended that the petitioner was not aware about the order dated 07/09.03.2012 passed by respondent No. 2 as the said order was not served to the petitioner and, therefore, when the petitioner came to know about the said order, he filed an appeal under Section 53 of the Act before respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the case of the petitioner on merits instead of dismissing the petition on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. At this stage, it is pointed out by the learned advocate that on 05.09.2007, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 1,04,790/- under the Amnesty Scheme 2007 and thereby paid the deficit stamp duty. Thereafter, the learned advocate for the petitioner has referred the order dated 07/09.03.2012 passed by respondent No. 2. It is pointed out from the order that submission was canvassed before respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has paid the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,04,790/-. 1,04,790/- under the Amnesty Scheme 2007 and thereby paid the deficit stamp duty. Thereafter, the learned advocate for the petitioner has referred the order dated 07/09.03.2012 passed by respondent No. 2. It is pointed out from the order that submission was canvassed before respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has paid the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,04,790/-. In spite of that, respondent No. 2 has not considered the said aspect while passing the order dated 07/09.03.2012 and thereby the petitioner was asked to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,12,058/-. 4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant, therefore, urged that the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities as well as the learned Single Judge be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rohan Yagnik for the respondents has opposed the present appeal and contended that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the petition. However, during the course of hearing, this Court, by an order dated 31.08.2018, asked the learned Assistant Government Pleader to obtain specific instructions whether the petitioner has in fact paid an amount of Rs. 1,04,790/- under the Amnesty Scheme 2007 or not and if he has paid, whether such amount is deducted from the amount payable by the petitioner for payment of deficit stamp duty. In pursuance of the said order, learned Assistant Government Pleader received a written instruction from respondent No. 2 wherein, it is specifically stated that the amount paid by the petitioner under Amnesty Scheme 2007 is required to be considered while passing order dated 07/09.03.2012. However, it appears that the said amount is not deducted from the amount which is required to be paid by the petitioner towards deficit stamp duty. The said communication is taken on record. 6. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties and also gone through the material placed on record. It is revealed from the record that initially, the petitioner has executed the registered Agreement for Sale with possession on 16.10.1995 and at that time, he has paid the stamp duty of Rs. 90,170/-. Subsequently, the registered Sale Deed was executed on 13.09.2001 for the said land and as per the provisions of the Act, the Sale Deed was executed on the stamp paper of Rs. 50/-. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid facts. 90,170/-. Subsequently, the registered Sale Deed was executed on 13.09.2001 for the said land and as per the provisions of the Act, the Sale Deed was executed on the stamp paper of Rs. 50/-. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid facts. However, thereafter, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 1,04,790/- towards deficit stamp duty with penalty when the State Government introduced Amnesty Scheme 2007. The said amount was paid by Challan No. 42 dated 05.09.2007. Copy of the said document is annexed at Page56 of the compilation. When respondent No. 2 issued the Show-cause Notice to the petitioner and asked him to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,12,058/- the petitioner submitted reply and also pointed out that the deficit stamp duty is already paid. However, respondent No. 2 has not dealt with the said submission nor the said document is considered while passing the order dated 07/09.03.2012 and the amount of Rs. 1,04,790/- paid under the Amnesty Scheme 2007 is not deducted from the amount of Rs. 1,12,058/- to be paid by the petitioner as per the said order towards the deficit stamp duty. During the course of hearing, it has not been confirmed by respondent No. 2 that through oversight, an amount of Rs. 1,04,790/- paid by the petitioner towards deficit stamp duty under the Amnesty Scheme 2007 is not considered by respondent No. 2 while passing the said order. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge and order dated 07/09.03.2012 are set aside. The order dated 07/09.03.2012 passed by respondent No. 2 is modified to the effect that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 7,268/- (Rs. 1,12,058, Rs. 1,04,790) to respondent No. 2 towards the deficit stamp duty.