Allowed

Ajit Shantilal Surana v. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2023WP/11354/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a stamp duty appeal on limitation grounds. The High Court held that the lower authority failed to address the petitioner's valid contents regarding the non-service of the final order and non-application of mind, setting aside the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

The order of 9/03/2015 setting aside the appeal and rejection of condonation of delay is set aside. The matter is restored to the lower authority for a fresh hearing.

Ajit Shantilal Surana Vs the Chief… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Digitally signed by VINA VINA ARVIND ARVIND KHADPE KHADPE Date: 2023.01.07 16:47:36 +0530

¶2

(16) wp 11354.2017.doc

¶3

Vina Khadpe

¶4

1 / 4

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 11354 OF 2017

¶7

Ajit Shantilal Surana … Petitioner Age:- 53 Years, Occu:- Trading & Agriculture R/o. Gawali Galli, Barshi District:-Solapur.

¶8

¶9

1 The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶10

2 The District Collector of Stamps, Solapur.

¶11

3 Additional District Registrar Class-1, … Respondents Solapur.

¶12

Mr.Sarthak Diwan i/b. Mr.Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for the Petitioner.

¶13

Mr. P.P. Pujari, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶14

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 6 JANUARY, 2023

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable with consent of the parties.

¶17

By this Petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 9^th March, 2015 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps, Pune Division, Pune, rejecting the Appeal fled by the petitioner under the

¶18

Vina Khadpe

¶19

2 / 4 (16) wp 11354.2017.doc

¶20

provisions of Section 32 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (for short, “the Act”), essentially on the ground that the Appeal was fled beyond the period of limitation of 60 days. In the Appeal, the petitioner challenged the provisional order dated 24^th April, 1994 as well as the fnal order dated 22^nd December, 1997. The Appeal was fled after long delay on 24^th December, 2014 supported by an Application seeking condonation of delay.

¶21

In Application for condonation of delay, the petitioner specifcally averred that the fnal order dated 22^nd December, 1997 was not served upon him and that he was unaware of such order being passed. It was further averred that the petitioner had received auction notice dated 28^th October, 2014 after which he applied for certifed copy of the order and discovered that the fnal order had been passed on 22^nd December, 1997. With these averments, delay in fling the Appeal was sought to be condoned.

¶22

Perusal of order dated 9^th March, 2015 passed by respondent no.1 shows that respondent no.1 has proceeded to ignore the aforesaid pleaded case of the petitioner in his

¶23

Vina Khadpe

¶24

3 / 4

¶25

(16) wp 11354.2017.doc

¶26

application for condonation of delay. Respondent No.1 has refused to condone the delay by making observations that the Appeal was required to be fled within a period of 60 days under the provisions of Section 32B of the Act and there was delay of 17 long years. On the basis of these observations, respondent no.1 has held that the merits of Appeal cannot be considered.

¶27

Perusal of order dated 9^th March, 2015 passed by respondent no.1 shows that there has been non application of mind on part of respondent no.1 to the vital contentions raised by the petitioner that the fnal order dated 22^nd December, 1997 was never served upon him.

¶28

There is one more aspect highlighted by Mr. Diwan, learned advocate for the Petitioner who invites my attention and the fnal order dated 22^nd December 1997. Mr. Diwan would contend that the column relating to the dates of notice have been left blank. On this basis, Mr. Diwan contends that the fnal order dated 22^nd December, 1997 itself is demonstrative of the fact that the notices in the matter were never served on the petitioner. Though, this aspect is not

¶29

Vina Khadpe

¶30

4 / 4

¶31

(16) wp 11354.2017.doc

¶32

specifcally highlighted in the Application seeking condonation of delay, the same would obviously have a bearing on the issue relating to the condonation of delay.

¶33

In the result, the order passed by respondent no.1 on 9^th March, 2015 rejecting the petitioner’s Appeal is unsustainable, and the same is set aside. The petitioner’s Application for condonation of delay so also Appeal No.29 of 2014 stands restored before respondent no.1. The petitioner will be at liberty to fle an additional affdavit in support of Application for condonation of delay. Respondent No.1 shall hear the parties a fresh and pass fresh order on the petitioner’s Application for condonation of delay. In the event, respondent No.1 proceeds to condone the delay, Appeal No.29 of 2014 can be taken for hearing on merits.

¶34

With the above observations, Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

¶35

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

Ajit Shantilal Surana v. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Shantilal Surana v. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zee Learn Limited vs Gyan Shanskar Shikshan Ew Am Samajik Welfare Society

Seals Retails World Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. vs Fashionista Inc.

Seals Retails World Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. vs Clothing Intelligence Agency

Shri. Chandrakant Krushna Pusekar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yuvraj Bapu Borgaonkar (Since Deceased through Lrs.) Vs Shri Mahadeo Vithalrao Deshmukh

Dhondiram Govid Kakade Vs Divisional Agari Joint Director and Anr.