JUDGMENT :

K.M. Thaker, J.

Heard Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Manisha Shah, learned Government Pleader with Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader.

2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that :-

"6(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Stamp and Registration Department, State Gujarat, Gandhinagar in Appeal File No. 262 of 2015 at Annexure-A to this petition;

(B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, Stamp and Registration Department, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar to accept the Challan dated 04.02.2015 filed by the petitioner and decide the Appeal File No. 262 of 2015 on merits and in accordance with law.

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Stamp and Registration Department, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar in Appeal File No. 262 of 2015 at Annexure-A to this petition."

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the competent authority, whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner on 16.12.2014 is treated as barred by limitation prescribed under the Act on the ground that the application is not filed within prescribed period of 90 days.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that considering from any angle, the appeal/revision application filed by the petitioner could not have been treated as barred by limitation because for the purpose of calculating delay, the relevant date would be the date of communication of the order to the concerned person. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that if the period is calculated from the date of the receipt of the order by the petitioner or even from the date of communication of the order to the petitioner, then it would be clear that though the application is filed within prescribed period of 90 days, the authority rejected the petitioner's application preferred against the order passed by the first adjudicating authority.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submitted that the authority has not committed any error in rejecting petitioner's appeal. The petitioner filed the appeal/revision application after prescribed period of limitation and that therefore, appeal/revision application is treated as barred by limitation.

6. Learned Government Pleader relied on Section 53 of the Act and submitted that said provision expressly provides of 90 days "from the date of the order" for filing the application, whereas the petitioner filed the application on 16.12.2014 and he was also obliged to deposit 25% amount out of the adjudicated amount on or before 04.02.2015 in view of the provisions of the Act, and that therefore, the authority has not committed any error in not entertaining the appeal.

7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first adjudicated authority under the provisions of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, the petitioner, a cooperative Society filed revision application under Section 53 of the Act before the revisional authority. However, the said authority treated the application as barred by limitation and accordingly rejected the revision (on the said ground) vide order dated 12.03.2015. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order. Hence, present petition.

8. So as to appreciate rival contentions raised by the contesting parties, it is necessary and appropriate to take in the account relevant dates.

A. The petitioner entered into a transaction and purchased a property by executing sale-deed 27.08.2013. The said