Redevelopment Rights Agreements stamped as conveyances qualify for stamp duty refund under Section 47(c)(5) on cancellation within 5 years despite delayed application, as State cannot rely on limitation technicalities for just claims.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.MODAK, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri.Raut for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondents-State.

2. The issue involved in this petition is about entitlement of the petitioner to claim refund of a stamp duty paid on Redevelopment Rights Agreement dated 19^th December 2013. It was a ‘Registered Agreement’. The present petitioner has been described as a Developer and one Adinarayan Co-operative Housing Society Limited has been described as a Society. A stamp duty of Rs.20,49,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Forty Nine Thousand) was paid. This Agreement was cancelled mutually and a “Deed of Cancellation” was executed on 8^th March 2017 between the same parties.

3. On this background, the petitioner asked for refund of a stamp duty vide their Application dated 24^th September 2019 to the Collector of Stamps for the reason that the parties have not acted upon the “Redevelopment Agreement” and even the possession of the property was not handed over. The Collector of Stamps has forwarded this proposal to the respondent No.2, who as per his order dated 27^th October 2021, had rejected the proposal for two reasons, one being that the “Redevelopment Rights Agreement” does not fall within the purview of “Agreement for Sale” and it was observed that it was the “Agreement for Redevelopment”. The provisions of Section 47 (c)(5) and provisions of Section 48 (1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (“the said Act” for short) are referred. Secondly an application for refund was not filed within the prescribed period. It was applied for after 2 years, 6 months and 16 days from the date of cancellation of “Original Agreement”. The period of limitation is 6 months from the date of the instrument (“Cancellation Deed”). This decision is challenged by way of this Writ Petition.

4. Learned Advocate Shri.Raut has invited our attention to the contents of both the Agreements, that is to say, “Redevelopment Rights Agreement” (hereinafter, will be described as “Original Agreement”) and “Deed of Cancellation”. He also invited our attention to the provisions of Section 47 (c)(5) and provision of Section 48 (1) of the said Act. He relied upon observations in following judgments:-

(i) Bano Saiyed Parwaz V/s. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps and Others. , (2025) 2 Supreme Court Cases 201

(ii) Sadoday Builders Private Ltd., and Another V/s. The Jt.Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Others. , Writ Petition No.4543 of 2010 : High Court of Bombay (Bench at Nagpur) : 23rd June 2011

(iii) M/s.Satyam Construction V/s. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ors. , Writ Petition No.241 of 2015 : High Court of Bombay : 3rd September 2025

(iv) Nanji Dana Patel V/s. State of Maharashtra, Through Government Pleader and Others. , 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2817

5. Whereas, learned AGP supported the impugned order and herelied upon the provisions of Article 25 of Schedule-I of the said Act (which lays down the stamp duty payable in a conveyance) and on the wordings of Article 5 (g-a) (which lays down stamp duty payable on a document giving authority to a developer for the purpose of construction). When such a document is there, a stamp duty, as laid down under Article 25, has to be paid. According to him, the “Original Agreement” is not an “Agreement for Sale” but it is a “Redevelopment Agreement” which falls within the purview of Article 5 (g-a) and not under Article 25.

6. There are two issues involved. One is about the true nature of the document and the provisions of Section 47 and Section 48 of