JUDGMENT : Alpesh Y. Kogje, J. 1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-state. 2. This petition is arising out of issue pertaining to the non-entertainment of an appeal under the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act on the ground of delay in filing such an appeal. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased a flat No. 901/A in Rudraksh Residency situated in the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 80/6 and T.P. Scheme No. 32, (Adajan) Final Plot No. 17 situated at Adajan, Surat. The said flat is purchased by registered sale deed on 11 Jan. 2008 and Rs. 12,03,031/- was paid as a full and final sale consideration. He submitted that the petitioner has paid stamp duty of Rs. 59000/- at the rate of 4.90% as per Article 20 of the Stamp Act and the Sub Registrar has registered the document being No. 325. Thereafter a notice was issued by the respondent No. 2 on 6/9/2010 and the petitioner also filed reply to the notice dated 5/11/2011, after receiving two additional notice dated 25/11/2010 and 30/9/2011. The respondent No. 2 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner straight way passed final order on 23/5/2012 and the said order was never communicated to the petitioner. On 11-06-2013 the respondent No. 2 issued final notice u/s. 152 with Rule 118 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879. After receiving this notice the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 2 has passed such order on 23 May 2012. On 20/6/2013 the petitioner approached the office of the respondent No. 2 to know whether infact such an order is passed by respondent No. 2 or not. After an inquiry the petitioner confirmed that the respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order on 23 May 2012. On the same day the petitioner asked for true copy of the said order. The respondent No. 2 issue the true copy of the said order after receiving Rs. 10/-. Thereafter on 25/6/2013 the petitioner preferred an application for sanctioning 25% challan of deficit stamp duty to prefer appeal u/s. 53 of the Bombay Stamp Act. On the same day the petitioner asked for true copy of the said order. The respondent No. 2 issue the true copy of the said order after receiving Rs. 10/-. Thereafter on 25/6/2013 the petitioner preferred an application for sanctioning 25% challan of deficit stamp duty to prefer appeal u/s. 53 of the Bombay Stamp Act. On 09/7/2013 the respondent No. 2 issued a letter intimating the petitioner that the application dated 25/6/2013 can not be considered for issuance of 25% challan because it was filed after a delay of more than one year. That is why the petitioner could not file appeal u/s. 53 of the Bombay Stamp Act. 4. As against this, learned AGP has relied upon the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jayminbhai Navinbhai Doshi & Ors. versus State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2015 (1) GLH 167 to contend that the High Court in the proceedings under Article-226 of the Constitution of India cannot condone the delay by taking recourse to Section-29(2) of the Limitation Act and has admittedly an appeal filed by the petitioner is beyond the period of limitation and filed after delay of two years and five months. The petition has to be dismissed on this very ground. 5. In rejoinder, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that even after the order of the Full Bench of this Court, an unreported order is passed in Special Civil Application No. 10441 of 2013 dated 02-07-2015, after considering the date of knowledge of the order to be date of order and permitted the appeal to proceed even after the period of 90 days. He also submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has time and again, considering this aspect, set aside the order rejecting an appeal on the ground of delay and permitting the appeal to proceed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, Rule-7 of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984, reads as under: "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, society or association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, the notice or order shall be served. 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, society or association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, the notice or order shall be served. (a) on the Secretary or any Director or other principal officer of the company, society or association of individuals, as the case may be, or (b) by sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due, addressed to the company, society or association of individuals, as the case may be, as its registered office or if there is no registered office, then at the place where the company, society or association of individuals, as the case maybe, carries, on business." 7. The petitioner purchased flat No. 901 in building-A, 9th floor, area admeasuring 1741 sq. ft. (Super Built up) which is popularly known as Rudraksh Residency a residential complex constructed as per development plan sanctioned by Surat Municipal Corporation by Rajachitthi No. TDO/271 dtd. 9th April 2006. The N.A. permission also granted by Ld. Collector Surat an according to the permission the developer has constructed the so called Rudraksh Residency Building. The petitioner purchased the above mentioned flat by Registered Sale Deed No. 325 which was executed on 11/1/2008 before the Sub Registrar, Athava, Surat and the petitioner has paid Rs. 12,03,031/- towards full and final sale consideration. 8. The respondent No. 2 issued notice on 6th September 2010 being notice No. Stamp/TPA/AG/PDP/Para 4/1733 under Rule 4 of the Bombay Stamp Act and the petitioner filed reply to the above notice on 15-11-2011 wherein the petitioner has preferred that flat No. 901/A was purchased by Registered Sale Deed dtd. 11th Jan. 2008 and paid Rs. 12,03,031/- towards full and final consideration. Rs. 59,000/- was paid as a Stamp Duty in pursuant to the Jantri Value of that date at the rate of 4.90%. And the Ld. Sub Registered Athva, Surat has registered the document in book No. 1 as 325 number registered and thereafter the said sale deed was returned to the petitioner, therefore the proceedings initiated u/s. 39(1)(B) of the Bombay Stamp Act against the petitioner is absolutely incorrect and that is required to be stopped abruptly. 9. And the Ld. Sub Registered Athva, Surat has registered the document in book No. 1 as 325 number registered and thereafter the said sale deed was returned to the petitioner, therefore the proceedings initiated u/s. 39(1)(B) of the Bombay Stamp Act against the petitioner is absolutely incorrect and that is required to be stopped abruptly. 9. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 without giving personal hearing the petitioner an ex-parte order was passed on 23 May 2012 in which the respondent No. 2 has observed that the auditor general has taken the registered sale deed for revaluation u/s. 7(3) of the Gujarat Stamp Act. The respondent No. 2 has fixed the market value of the flat No. 901/A of Rudraksh Residency of Rs. Six lakh and in pursuant to Article 21 of the Act Rs. 1,98,764/- was fixed for stamp duty but the petitioner has paid Rs. 59,000/- towards stamp duty. Therefore the required deficit stamp duty Rs. 1,39,764/- (Rs. 198764-59,000/-) to be paid by the petitioner u/s. 39(1)(B) along with penalty of Rs. 1,000/-. Therefore the total deficit stamp duty is required to be paid by the petitioner is Rs. 1,40,764/-. 10. The petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 2 also directed the petitioner to file appeal against the order of the respondent No. 2 if aggrieved within 90 days before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Gandhinagar, State of Gujarat, after depositing 25% of the deficit stamp duty and appeal fee of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner has directed to pay the above deficit stamp duty of Rs. 140764/- within 90 days from the date of order failing which 15% will be charged per annum till the date of recovery. 11. The petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 2 passed order on 23/05/2012 but the said impugned is never communicated to the petitioner. When a notice u/s. 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 and Rule 118 issued to the petitioner on 11/6/2013 then only the petitioner came to know that such order is passed by the respondent No. 2. Immediately the petitioner approached respondent No. 2 along with his advocate and applied for copy of the impugned order dated 23/5/2012. The respondent No. 2 directed to the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10/- towards the cost of the order copy. On 28th June, 2013 the petitioner deposited Rs. 10/- and received the two copy of the impugned order. Immediately the petitioner approached respondent No. 2 along with his advocate and applied for copy of the impugned order dated 23/5/2012. The respondent No. 2 directed to the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10/- towards the cost of the order copy. On 28th June, 2013 the petitioner deposited Rs. 10/- and received the two copy of the impugned order. Therefore the petitioner could not file appeal within 90 days before the appropriate authority. 12. After the receiving of the copy of the order the petitioner preferred an application on 25th June 2013 before the respondent No. 2 for issuing challan of 25% of deficit stamp duty so as to prefer appeal before the appellate authority u/s. 53 of the Bombay Stamp Act but the respondent No. 2 refused to issue challan of 25% of deficit stamp duty merely underground that the statutory period of filing appeal is expired. 13. The Full Bench of this Court in the judgment of Jayminbhai Navinbhai Doshi (supra) was answering the reference made by the Single Judge of this Court. The order of reference was made in this very matter along with cognate matter by common oral order dated 09-05-2014 and while answering such reference, the Full Bench has held as under: "13. In view of the above observations of the Supreme Court, where even the High Court's jurisdiction under the Act was found to be excluded by operation of section 35H of the Central Excise Act, by applying the same principle, it must be concluded that by providing no power of condonation under Section 53 and by giving power of condonation only to the limited extent to the proceedings under section 54(1A), the Legislature has made its intention clear that so far the present cases are concerned, the authority under Section 53(1) had no power of condonation. However, in the present cases, since the reference has also been made on the question as to the power of condonation of delay by High Court in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we also propose to answer the said question. 14. However, in the present cases, since the reference has also been made on the question as to the power of condonation of delay by High Court in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we also propose to answer the said question. 14. It is now settled law that the Limitation Act has no application to a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution and consequently, no period of limitation is prescribed either under the Limitation Act or in the Constitution of India for moving an application under Article 226 and thus, there is no scope of taking aid of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. A person is entitled to move High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when by the illegal action or in action on the part of a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, any of his legal or fundamental rights is infringed. In the Special Civil Applications out of which the present References arise, the petitioners have alleged violation of their legal rights accrued by virtue of the provisions contained in the Act itself. In view of our finding that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority exercising power under Section 53(1) of the Act has no power of condonation of delay in filing the application beyond the period mentioned therein, for the refusal on the part of the said authority to condone delay for want of jurisdiction, none of the legal rights of the petitioners have been infringed and thus, if the Chief Controlling Authority has no power of condonation, it necessarily follows that the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cannot condone the delay when the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority did not possess such power and rightly refused to condone. Thus, by taking recourse to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the High Court cannot condone such delay in the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, thus, dispose of these References by answering the question referred by the learned Single Judge in the negative. 16.1 The References are, thus, disposed of. 16. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, thus, dispose of these References by answering the question referred by the learned Single Judge in the negative. 16.1 The References are, thus, disposed of. 16.2 We may clarify here that apart from the questions referred to us, we have otherwise not gone into the merit of the original order passed by the competent authority. In some of the Special Civil Applications, we are informed, the original orders of the competent authority without taking recourse to Section 53 of the Act are the subject matters of challenge. It is needless to mention that those matters should be disposed of by the learned Single Judge in accordance with the law." 14. After the decision of the Full Bench, in one of the petitions, which was also part of the reference of Single Judge of this Court, an order is passed on 02-07-2015 in Special Civil Application No. 10441 of 2013 by construing the date of knowledge of the order to be the date of order from which the period of limitation is to be construed. In Para-13, it is held as under: "13. Upon perusal of the record, order passed by the authorities below namely, Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Bhavnagar, and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority who passed the order on 14.05.2013 and the decision relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner and so submitted on the previous date of hearing i.e. on 25.06.2015, it is clear that in addition to the decision relied on the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, Indian Forest Act, and Section 48AA of the Advocates Act referred in the case of Pratishtha Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the position of law of counting the period of 90 (Ninety) days which is for filing an appeal under Section 53(1) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, is no more res Integra, and the statutory period of 90 (Ninety) days to be counted from the date of receipt of the order by the recipient - an aggrieved person, who would like to prefer an appeal. In the facts of this case, at the cost of repetition, the petitioner received the order dated 03.08.2012 passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Bhavnagar, which was dispatched on 04.08.2012 by the office of the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Bhavnagar and was admittedly received by the petitioner through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due on 08.08.2012, and an appeal was filed on 02.11.2012. Thus, the petitioner had preferred an appeal within the 86 (Eighty Six) days from the date of receipt of such order and the ratio of law decided by this Court in the case of Pratishtha Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), if applied in the facts of this case, the appeal filed by the petitioner is to be held that it is filed within the 90 (Ninety) days, and therefore, stand taken by the respondent authority, namely, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by impugned order and an additional affidavit filed on 01.07.2015 is not only illegal, but contrary to the law laid down by this Court as above. In spite of the declaration of law by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of Pratishtha Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) interpreting the words 'date of order' relying on the law laid down in the case of D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India, AIR 2003 SC 2502 , stand taken by the deponent in para 3 of the affidavit which is reproduced in the earlier part of the order reflects an attitude of defying the declaration of law on the very issue, and not to impose the cost as submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader would encourage such trend of the officers of the Government of Gujarat, and therefore, to avoid repetition of such incident in future, I am of the opinion to impose the costs of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) on the deponent and the order impugned 03.08.2012 passed by Respondent No. 4 Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Bhavnagar and impugned communication dated 14.05.2013 issued by Respondent No. 2 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gandhinagar are quashed and set aside with a direction that the said amount of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) on the deponent and the order impugned 03.08.2012 passed by Respondent No. 4 Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Bhavnagar and impugned communication dated 14.05.2013 issued by Respondent No. 2 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gandhinagar are quashed and set aside with a direction that the said amount of Rs. 2,500/- be deposited by the deponent - Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Bhavnagar with the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order/writ of this Court, failing which, appropriate action, in accordance with law, will be taken." 15. Relying upon other judgment reported in Pratishtha Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat reported in 2014 (3) GLR 2609 and in the case of D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India reported in AIR 2003 SC 2502 held that the words 'from the date of order' is to be interpreted that starting point of 90 (Ninety) days would be taken from the date of receipt of the order by the recipient, to file an appeal against such order.' 16. The Court has also gone through the orders of Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No. 9080 of 2013 dated 28-11-2017 and held that in the facts of this case, the order of the Deputy Collector dated 23-05-2012 was not served upon the petitioner and such order came within the knowledge of the petitioner only upon being served with the Notice dated 11-06-2013 and from the date of knowledge of the order appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section-53(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act on 25-06-2013, is to be treated as an appeal within period of limitation. As the Court has taken into consideration the aspect of limitation and is quashing the order of the Authorities in not entertaining the appeal only on the ground of limitation, the Court deems it fit not to enter into the merits and demerits of the case as to whether the Stamp used was deficit, but leaves it open to the Authorities to take a decision in the appeal proceedings. 17. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. The communication dated 11-06-2013 and 09-07-2013 are hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal under Section-53(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act. 17. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. The communication dated 11-06-2013 and 09-07-2013 are hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal under Section-53(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act. The same to be treated along with 25% of the deficit stamp fees within a period of three weeks from date of receipt of the order of this Court. The Chief Controlling Authority shall treat such appeal within such period of limitation and consider an appeal on its merits. Direct service is permitted.