The main legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal to execute a sale deed gives the right to seek a refund of the amount expended for the purchase of stamp papers, as provided under Section 47 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958.

ORDER :

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION No.1760 OF 2022 :

1. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considering the averments made in the application, we are of the considered view that delay of 151 days occurred in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be condoned and accordingly, it stands condoned. Civil Application No.1760 of 2022 stands allowed.

ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1430 OF 2022 :

2. The Letters Patent Appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 13.09.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.15237 of 2019 whereunder the communication dated 08.11.2012 issued by the respondent rejecting the request of petitioner for refund of the amount towards unutilized stamp papers came to be rejected.

3. The writ applicants Shri Govind Jivabhai Sabhaya and late Shri Kirtikumar Mohanlal Kabrawala had purchased stamp papers on 16.05.2012 and 18.05.2012 for the purpose of obtaining a registered Sale Deed for a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- and Rs.1,00,500/-. On account of the vendors having refused to execute the Sale Deed and on account of transaction having failed, applicants are said to have submitted an application to the respondent authorities for refund of the value of unutilized stamp papers which remained unused or unutilized by submitting applications on 12.07.2012 and 11.09.2012. Said applications came to be rejected on the ground that said documents have been duly signed and as such, applications for refund cannot be entertained.

4. Being aggrieved by the said orders, petitioners approached the learned Single Judge by filing Special Civil Application No.15237 of 2019, who after having noticed that petitioners had not availed the alternate remedy by filing a reference or revision and that too against the decision of the year 2012 has dismissed the application. It was also noticed by learned Single Judge that Section 53 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, provides for limitation within which the revision petition had to be filed against the orders passed under the provisions of Chapter-V and as such held that belated challenge to the order before this Court under Article 226 is liable to be rejected and accordingly has rejected the application.

5. We have heard the arguments of Mr.Bhuvnesh Gehlot, learned advocate appearing for appellant and Mr.K.M.Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader who has accepted notice for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and has waived notice on their behalf. By reiterating the grounds urged before the learned Single Judge, appellant’s counsel would pray for the impugned orders being set aside. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader would support the impugned orders.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of impugned orders namely the orders impugned before the learned Single Judge, it would clearly emerge therefrom that applications dated 12.07.2012 and 11.09.2012 came to be filed for refund of the stamp papers which had been purchased in a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- and Rs.1,00,500/-. According to the applicants, said transaction of sale could not be completed or in other words, said transaction did not take place on account of the vendors having refused to execute the Sale Deed or in other words, they had turned back from their commitment and as such, they contended that Sale Deed could not be executed and registered. Hence, they sought for refund of the value of the stamp papers.

7. Section 47 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, provides for an inquiry to be made by the Collector when an application is filed for impressed stamp spoiled sought to be produced before him and refund is sought on any of the grounds enumerated in Clause (a) to (c) thereunder. As could be seen from the impugned order, the applications have been rejected under Section 47(b) on the ground that document was signed or executed by a party to the sale transaction. However, sub-clause (3) of Clause (c) of Section 47 has not been looked into by the said authority, which provisi