IMPORTANT POINT
The court established the principle that compelling compliance with impossible conditions, and prejudicing a party due to judicial delay, would be unjust and unconscionable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 9th February, 2022 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune in Appeal No. 111 of 2021 whereby the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was persuaded to dismiss the appeal under section 53(1A) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (Stamp Act, 1958) by affirming the order dated 27th April, 2021 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Borivali declining refund of the stamp duty under section 48 of the Stamp Act, 1958.

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated in brief as under:-

A] The petitioner, who is a retired bank official, had on 10th November, 2014 entered into an Agreement to Purchase a flat in a building known as “ERA” with M/s. Vijaykamal Properties Private Limited (the Developer). The said agreement was duly registered on 19th November, 2014 with the Registrar of Assurances, stamp duty of Rs. 4,76,000/- was paid vide receipt number 7271 dated 19th November, 2014 along with registration charges of Rs. 30,000/-. Under the terms of the agreement, the developer had agreed to deliver possession of the flat by 30th June, 2017.

B] The Developer neither developed the building nor refunded the consideration parted with by the petitioner.

Hence, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). By an order dated 26th December, 2017 RERA directed the Developer to refund the consideration and also execute a Deed of Cancellation. On account of the breach on the part of the Developer to comply with the aforesaid order, the petitioner was constrained to file an Execution Application under section 63 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Thereupon by an order dated 13th March, 2018 RERA imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- per day till the compliance of the order, on the Developer.

C] Being aggrieved, the Developer preferred an appeal before RERA Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 21st August, 2018 the Appellate Tribunal stayed the order passed by RERA subject to payment of 50% due amount along with interest by the Developer.

D] In view of the default on the part of the Developer to comply with the order of Appellate Tribunal as well, the appeal preferred by the Developer came to be dismissed for want of compliance by an order dated 16th October, 2018. The petitioner laid execution before the RERA Appellate Tribunal. E] In the said proceeding, the Developer and the petitioner arrived at a settlement and consent terms were executed. In accordance with the consent terms, the Developer agreed to refund the amount in four installments. The last installment was released on 22nd February, 2021. Consequently, a Deed of Cancellation was came to be executed by the petitioner on 9th March, 2021. Thereupon the Execution Application came to be disposed of by the RERA Appellate Tribunal on 19th March, 2021.

F] On 31st March, 2021 the petitioner applied for refund of stamp duty paid on the Agreement for Sale registered on 19th November, 2014.

G] By an order dated 27th April, 2021, the Collector of Stamps rejected the claim for refund holding that as Agreement for Sale was not cancelled within the five years of the execution thereof, the claim for refund was not sustainable in view of the proviso to section 48(1) of the Stamp Act, 1958.

H] Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. By an order dated 9th February, 2022, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was also persuaded to dismiss the appeal holding that the interdict contained in the proviso to section 48(1) of the Stamp Act came into play as the registered instrument was cancelled beyond five years of its execution.

4. Being further aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the writ