JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P1 proceedings of the 3rd respondent - Sub Collector, rejecting his application for refund of Stamp Duty, on the ground that the statutory period of limitation for preferring it had expired.

2. The petitioner says that Ext.P1 is untenable because his application for refund ought to have been considered as one under Section 48 (3) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short); but that said Authority has construed it as being under Section 48 (1) thereof .

3. The petitioner says that since the stamp paper was written upon, but not registered on account of the fact that there was an encumbrance on the property sought to be purchased through it, his application can only be treated as being one under Section 48 (3) and not under Section

48(1) of the Act.

4. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P1 be set aside and the Sub Collector be directed to allow his request for refund of the stamp duty.

5. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that the averments in the writ petition are contradictory because, in paragraph 3 thereof, she says that the document had been prepared on the sta