IMPORTANT POINT
The right to claim a refund of stamp duty is governed by statutory provisions, and failure to comply with the prescribed limitation period without sufficient justification precludes the possibility of obtaining a refund.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for Petitioner and learned AGP appearing for Respondent-State.

2. These six Petitions have been filed by Petitioner-Vilas Eknath Nandgude challenging Orders dated 31 December 2019 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Collector of Stamps in Refund Applications as well as Orders dated 13 May 2022 passed by Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, Maharashtra. Petitioner is aggrieved by refusal on the part of the Respondents in refunding the amount of stamp duty purchased by him for execution of transactions, which have not materialized.

3. Petitioner has paid stamp duty of Rs.1,05,07,030/- for execution of six Sale Deeds and wants the said stamp duty to be refunded as sale transactions did not materialize. Respondents have refused the request for refund on the ground that the applications for refund were made after expiry of period of 6 months as provided under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (Stamp Act). Petitioner has accordingly raised an issue as to whether the State Government is justified in retaining the amount of stamp duty in respect of a failed transaction. For better understanding of the issue, it will be necessary to refer to the events leading to payment of stamp duty, failure of the purchase transactions and applications for refund.

4. Properties situated at Survey Nos. 21/3, 20/15/1 and 20/13/1 village Pimple Nilakh, Pune, stood in the ownership of one Pappuraj Dattatraya Sutar (Manmode) and others, who assigned and transferred their rights in favour of Apurva Krushna Bhandage vide Development Agreements and Power of Attorneys dated 16 September 2002 and 11 September 2002. Said Apurva Krushna Bhandage assigned his rights in favour of Baburao Vishwanath Bagade vide Development Agreements and Power of Attorneys executed on 1 June 2004. Said Baburao Vishwanath Bagade thereafter transferred and assigned his rights in Petitioner's favour vide Development Agreements and Power of Attorneys executed on 7 March 2006.

5. It appears that names of tenants (Laxman Nathoba Sathe and others) appeared on 7/12 extracts of those properties and the tenants had filed proceedings under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act), which were dropped vide Order dated 15 April 1991 declaring that the tenant was minor. The said order was challenged before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which directed that the land bearing Survey Nos.20/15/1 and 21/3 be given to tenants and land bearing Survey No.20/13/1 be given to the owners. Petitioner avers that the said tenants have executed have a registered Release Deed in his favour, in pursuance of which, the Tehsildar, Haveli passed order under section 15 of the Tenancy Act on 27 September 2007 recording surrender of tenancy rights and directed deletion of tenant's names from 7/12 extract of the properties.

6. It appears that Petitioner desired to have a Sale Deed in respect of the entire property executed in his name and apparently prepared draft Sale Deeds and submitted the same for adjudication to the Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps for valuation of the property. In the meantime, some other tenants raised objections and raised their tenancy claims by filing Special Civil Suit No.1191 of 2009 as well as proceedings before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under section 32G of the Tenancy Act. Petitioner claims that during pendency of the said Civil Suit and proceedings before the Tribunal, the tenants showed their readiness and willingness to settle the disputes and to execute Sale Deeds in respect of the property in Petitioner's favour. Petitioner believed that he was not required to pay any stamp duty as per section 32 of the Stamp Act since he had already paid stamp duty on the Development Agreements. He therefore filed an application before the Collector of Stamps a