In the absence of a statutorily defined limitation period, administrative authorities must exercise powers of assessment or revision within a reasonable time. Unexplained, inordinate delays in exercising such powers—such as an eighteen-year gap—violate the principle that settled transactions should not be unsettled after significant time.

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the Collector and Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Range-I, Alipore, Kolkata dated 22nd July, 2021, wherein the stamp duty for registration of sale deed as per market value of the apartment/unit along with one open car parking space is determined at Rs. 1,45,14,836/-.

2. The petitioners have purchased two office spaces at the 1st Floor, 113, Park Street, Kolkata- 700016 admeasuring 2288 sq.ft super built up area and admeasuring 1712 sq. ft. super built up area respectively from one Bejon Behary Mullick through two separate registered sale deeds. On completion of all formalities, the sale deed executed between the parties was presented in the office of the respondent no. 5 on 9th September, 2003 for registration. On receipt of the two deeds, the office of the respondent no.5 issued two separate IGR Receipts being R 226214 and R 226213 dated 9th September, 2003 by recording deed Nos. 06798 and 06799 respectively.

3. Even after the expiry of one month from the date of presentation of deeds, the office of the respondent no.5 failed to hand over deeds to the petitioners, accordingly, the petitioners time to time approached the authority for handing over the deeds to the petitioners but the same was not made available to the petitioners.

4. After the substantial period of time when the deed was not made available to the petitioners, the petitioners approached the authorities and it was informed to the petitioners that the original sale deeds are not traceable and once it traced out, the same will be handed over to the petitioners.

5. In spite of several requests when the deed was not handed over to the petitioners, the petitioners approached the higher authorities. Thereafter, the office of the respondent authorities informed to the petitioners that due to inadvertence, the said deeds were not uploaded by scanning in its regular course of business and the same cannot be scanned and inserted in the requisite position by the respondents.

6. The petitioners approached the respondent no.5 for release of the said deeds sometimes in the month of March, 2021 but the respondent no.5 insisted upon the petitioners to pay stamp duty on the prevailing current market rate and generated fresh queries and demanded a sum of Rs. 18,98,287/- and Rs. 25,36,955/- towards stamp duty and a sum of Rs. 2,09,751/- and Rs. 2,80,327/- towards registration fees for the area of 1712 and 2282 sq.ft. respectively.

7. As the petitioners were not agreeable to pay the stamp duty as per present market values as assessed by the respondent no.5, the respondent no.3 initiated proceeding under sub-section 5 of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and issued notice to the petitioners on 22nd July, 2021 and the respondent no.3 has passed the impugned order.

8. Dr. S. Muralidhar, Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted two sale deeds on 9th September, 2003 and on receipt of the same, IGR numbers were provided and the authorities ought to have register the said deeds within a period of one month but inspite of several requests, the deeds were not registered.

9. Dr. Muralidhar submits that it is the admitted case of the respondents that the deeds were not traceable due to which the same cannot be registered, thus the petitioners cannot be made liable to pay stamp duty as per present market value. He submits that the respondents have issued notice on 9th July, 2021 under sub-section 5 of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, only upon repeated pursuance and reminders by the petitioners after the period of 18 years from the date of submission and execution of deeds, is illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the respondents.

10. Dr. Muralidhar submits that at the time of execution and presentation of the two deeds in the year 2003, the petitioners have duly paid the stamp duty and there was n