Time spent in stamp duty adjudication excluded from limitation under Registration Act Sections 23/25; registration of BIFR sanctioned scheme orders directed post-final certification as vesting complete by operation of law.

JUDGMENT (PER HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. At the outset, we take on record the statement made on behalf of the Petitioner that the relief concerning mutation is not pressed at this stage, with liberty reserved. We also record that the correct date of the BIFR sanction order is 26^th February, 2007 as mentioned by the Petitioner in separate note of statement and verified from the records.

3. The present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks, inter alia, a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to register, under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the orders dated 26^th February, 2007 and 3^rd January, 2013 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in Case No. 135 of 1989, whereby, pursuant to a sanctioned scheme of revival-cum- demerger under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, (“the SICA Act”) the immovable properties of Respondent No. 9 stood transferred to and vested in the Petitioner with effect from 1^st April, 2006. Consequential directions were also sought for registration of the declaration-cum-indemnity dated 28^th November, 2024 and for mutation of revenue records reflecting the Petitioner’s title. Of which now on the basis of the statement made before us as recorded above by the Petitioner, this prayer pertaining to mutation of the Petitioner’s name in the Revenue Records does not survive.

4. It is submitted that the Petitioner, originally incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 1956 and subsequently converted into a limited liability partnership under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, has at all material times acted bonafide and diligently. It was emphasized that the rights of the Petitioner in respect of the subject properties do not emanate from any voluntary instrument but arise by operation of law, pursuant to a statutory scheme sanctioned by BIFR, which has attained finality. The transfer and vesting of the properties, it was submitted, stood completed upon sanction of the scheme, and the requirement of registration is merely consequential to reflect such vesting in public records.

5. Tracing the chronology, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 9, being a sick industrial company, had approached BIFR under the SICA Act, and by its order dated 26^th February, 2007, a scheme of revival-cum-demerger was sanctioned. Under the said scheme, the subject immovable properties stood transferred to the Petitioner with retrospective effect from 1^st April, 2006. Clause 11.1(d)(e) of the scheme specifically obligated the State of Maharashtra to treat such demerger at par with reconstruction under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for stamp duty purposes and to give effect to the transfer. However, despite binding directions, the State authorities failed to act in compliance, compelling the Petitioner to initiate further proceedings before BIFR, resulting in the order dated 3^rd January, 2013 reiterating and enforcing the obligation upon the State authorities to compute and recover stamp duty in accordance with the scheme and to register the properties.

6. The Petitioner and its counsel further submitted that instead of complying with the binding BIFR directions