2025:BHC-OS:9688-DB

01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

Arjun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.12995 OF 2024
Atul Project India Private Limited
having office at 5th Floor,
Trade Avenue, Suren Road,
W. E. Highway, Andheri East,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 093 …Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Government Pleader,
High Court, Mumbai
2. Joint Sub-Registrar,
Class-II, Borivali no.4
having office at Ground Floor,
Shri Mr House Building,
Station Road, Goregaon (W)
Mumbai No. 400 062
3. Inspector General of
Registration and controller of Stamps,
Maharashtra of
Maharashtra Pune office, Pune-1 …Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Naresh Jain a/w Neha Anchila, Aarti Debnath & Niharika Patil, for
the Petitioner.
Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General a/w Ms. Jaymala Ostwal,
Additional GP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 05 MARCH 2025

JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Naresh Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Dr.

Birendra Saraf, learned Advocate General for the Respondent - State of

Maharashtra.

1
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

Impugned order/Circulars/Reliefs sought:

2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the

letter dated 13th February 2024 of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Class-II,

Borivali No.4, Mumbai Suburban District. The Petitioner has also raised

challenge to Circulars dated 22nd December 2011 and 30th November

2013 issued by Inspector General of Registration and Controller of

Stamps, State of Maharashtra, Pune. In the alternative it is prayed that,

it be declared that said Circulars dated 22nd December 2011 and 30th

November 2013 are not applicable to the instruments regularized in

Amnesty Scheme. A relief is also sought to the effect that Respondent

No.2 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Class-II, Borivali-4 be directed to do

registration of Development-cum-Sale Agreement dated 4th October

1987 along with Confirmation Deed, if necessary.

3. By the said letter dated 13th February 2024 of the Joint Sub-

Registrar, Class-II, Borivali No.4, Mumbai Suburban District, it has been

informed to the Petitioner that, pursuant to said Circular dated 22nd

December 2011 read with Circular dated 30th November 2013, a new

document be executed after paying the proper stamp duty and by

complying with the mandatory requirements of the Registration Act,

1908 (“Registration Act”), the same be presented for registration and

thereafter the same will be registered.

2
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

4. By said Circular dated 22nd December 2011 read with Circular

dated 30th November 2013, it is clarified that a new document by

paying applicable stamp duty can be registered within the timeline as

per the provisions of the Registration Act.

Submissions on behalf of Petitioner:

5. Mr. Naresh Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised the

following contentions:-

i. The Petitioner has participated in the Maharashtra Stamp Duty

Amnesty Scheme 2023 (“Amnesty Scheme”) and paid the stamp duty on

instrument as “Development-cum-Sale Agreement” dated 4th October

1987 under the said Amnesty Scheme.

ii. Learned Counsel relied on the terms and conditions of the said

Amnesty Scheme which is produced at Exhibit - E (Page Nos.136 - 142

of the Writ Petition). He pointed out object of the Amnesty Scheme and

submitted that the object is to recover the stamp duty pending

registration. He submitted that the Amnesty Scheme has been launched

under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (“Stamp Act”),

however, Stamp Authority as well as Registering Authorities both are

involved in implementing Amnesty Scheme.

iii. Learned Counsel submitted that after payment of stamp duty as

per the Amnesty Scheme, the Petitioner approached the Respondent

No.2 i.e. Joint Sub-Registrar, Class-II, Borivali No.4, Mumbai Suburban

3
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

District (“Registering Authority”) on 31st January 2024 to register the

said Agreement. The Registering Authority by impugned Letter dated

13th February 2024, refused to register the said instrument and asked

the Petitioner to get executed a fresh document and by paying proper

stamp duty on the same to present the same for registration.

iv. Learned Counsel submitted that a person pays stamp duty on an

instrument including transaction of immovable property so that he can

get the document registered with the Registering Authority. He

submitted that as per the Amnesty Scheme even the instruments which

have not been presented for registration, though executed between 1st

January 1980 to 31st December 2020 were given benefit of the Amnesty

Scheme. He submitted that the Petitioner bonafidely acted upon the

said Amnesty Scheme launched by the State and paid the stamp duty so

that the agreement gets registered. Learned Counsel submitted that a

legitimate expectation in general public is created that after payment of

the stamp duty under Amnesty Scheme, instrument shall be registered

without any further demand of the stamp duty. He submitted that the

action of the Registering Authority of asking the Petitioner to get the

document freshly executed and payment of stamp duty on such

document is totally barred by doctrine of promissory estoppel. He relied

on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Chitvan Cooperative

1
Housing Society Limited v. State of Gujarat and more particularly on
1 Manu/GJ/1329/2017

4
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

Paragraph No.5.4 of the said decision. He also relied on the decision of

2
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and submitted

that the letter of the Respondent No.2 is barred by doctrine of

promissory estoppel and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Learned

Counsel submitted that although it is the submission of the Respondents

that promissory estoppel is not applicable when promisee has

committed a breach, Amnesty Scheme is introduced to overcome all

such breaches and participation of the Petitioner in the Amnesty

Scheme clearly shows that the Petitioner has overcome such breach.

Learned Counsel submitted that doctrine of legitimate expectation and

doctrine of estoppel shall apply in this case and therefore the

instrument executed by the Petitioner in the year 1987 i.e.

Development-cum-Sale Agreement dated 4th October 1987 for which

stamp duty is paid as per the Amnesty Scheme, no further stamp duty

could be demanded irrespective of the fact that any further document is

executed to comply with Section 23 of the Registration Act.

v. Learned Counsel submitted that the registration of instrument is

refused on the ground that Registering Authority is separate from stamp

duty Authority and no promise is made for registration of document in

the Amnesty Scheme. He submitted although the Registration Act is a

Central Act, power of modification, adoption and implementation of the

Registration Act is vested upon the State Government. Learned Counsel

2 (1979) 2 SCC 409

5
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

submitted that Section 69 of the Registration Act, confers power on the

State Government to make rules for various functions of registration.

Thus, it is his submission that even the State Authorities has power

under the Registration Act to extend the time for registration. Learned

Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Goel v.

Collector of Stamps 3.

vi. Learned Counsel further submitted that the requirement which

the registration authorities have informed by impugned communication

dated 13th February 2024 that new document be executed by paying

applicable stamp duty and the same be presented for registration in the

time limit as provided under the Registration Act, is in fact the demand

raised for registration under the Stamp Act and therefore it is within the

power of the State to direct that no further stamp duty should be

demanded on the instruments which have participated in Amnesty

Scheme and even if, a new document can be executed and presented for

registration, without insisting for payment of stamp duty once again. He

submitted that Amnesty Scheme is also implemented by one department

of the State Government under the Stamp Act and after paying stamp

duty, registration is to be done by same Authority of the State

Government acting as registration authority under Registration Act and

therefore both authorities are the State Authorities involved in

implementing the Amnesty Scheme. Learned Counsel therefore

3 (1996) 1 SCC 573

6
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

submitted that in view of participation by the Petitioner in Amnesty

Scheme, Registering Authority cannot refuse to do registration of

instrument on which proper stamp duty has been paid under the

Amnesty Scheme and therefore action of asking the Petitioner to

execute fresh document and payment of fresh stamp duty is illegal. He

submitted that two arms of the State are speaking in two voices and the

same is impermissible. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court

4
in Lloyd Electric & Engg. Ltd. v. State of H.P. and more particularly on

Paragraph No.10 of the same. He also relied on the decision of WS

Retail Services v. State of Karnataka 5, and more particularly on

Paragraph No.20 of the same. He also relied on the decision in Pro

Sportify P. Ltd. v. Pr. Commr. CGST 6 and more particularly on Paragraph

Nos.12 and 15 of the same.

vii. Learned Counsel submitted that the Registration Act is a

procedural law and Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act should be

interpreted liberally. Learned Counsel submitted that harmonious

construction is required between the provisions of the Stamp Act and

the Registration Act. He submitted that otherwise Amnesty Scheme will

become redundant and the same will be a colourable device, if the

Registration of the instrument is not allowed after payment of stamp

duty in the Amnesty Scheme. He submitted that in that case the entire

4 (2016) 1 SCC 560

5 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 3556
6 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4639

7
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

object of the Amnesty Scheme would be defeated and the Scheme will

become redundant. Learned Counsel therefore submitted that limitation

of 4 months or 8 months as provided under Sections 23 or 25 will not

apply to the documents on which proper stamp duty has been paid

under the Amnesty Scheme.

viii. Learned Counsel submitted that it is well acceptable practice that

if a document is executed on a particular date and could not be

presented for registration within 4 or 8 months of the execution, as the

case may be, a fresh document in form of confirmation deed confirming

the earlier instrument is presented along with original instrument for

registration and such confirmation deed in fact does not create any new

rights or obligations. The document is required to be registered along

with the confirmation deed. He relied on the decision of this Court in

Madhu Kachharam Achhra v. Joint Sub Registrar of Assurance

Ulhasnagar 7, wherein this Court directed the Registrar to register on

presentation the deed of confirmation without insisting on payment of

any stamp duty as the confirmation deed is not a fresh transaction but is

only a confirmation of previously stamped and registered document. He

also relied on the decision of this Court in Bayview Lounge Pvt. Ltd. v.
8
Collector of Stamps Mumbai He therefore submitted that keeping in

view the Amnesty Scheme and Sections 23 or 25 of the Registration Act

7 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 11362

8 Writ Petition No.702 of 2021 (Decided on 20/08/2021)

8
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

if confirmation deed is to be made, no further stamp duty is liable to be

paid on the fresh document confirming the said transaction dated 4th

October 1987. He submitted that as proper stamp duty as per the

Amnesty Scheme has already been paid on Agreement dated 4th

October 1987, on the confirmation deed, at the most stamp duty of

Rs.100/- and adjudication fees of Rs.100/- can be levied as per Section

4 of the Stamp Act. Learned Counsel therefore submitted that the

Registering Authority be directed to register the document and no fresh

stamp duty can be directed to be paid for the same instrument as the

stamp duty has been paid in the Amnesty Scheme.

ix. Learned Counsel submitted that alternatively, new document i.e.

Confirmation Deed, if required is to be executed to confirm the original

transaction, for compliance of Sections 23 or 25 of the Registration Act

no further stamp duty should be levied and at the most only Rs.100/- is

to be leviable as stamp duty on confirmation deed.

x. Mr. Naresh Jain, learned Counsel therefore submitted that the

relief sought in the Writ Petition be granted.

Submissions of Advocate General:

6. Dr. Birendra Saraf, learned Advocate General raised following

contentions:-

i. Learned Advocate General submitted that the object of the Stamp

Act and Registration Act are totally different. The Stamp Act is a State

9
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

legislation enacted in terms of Entry 63 of the State List and Entry 44 of

the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.

The Stamp Act is a fiscal statute enacted to secure revenue for the State

on certain classes of instruments. There is no limitation or timeline

provided for collection of duty on insufficiently stamped documents as

the object of the Act is to collect the duty and penalty thereon. It is

submitted that the Registration Act is a Central legislation enacted in

terms of Entry 6 in the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the

Constitution of India. The Registration Act has been enacted to prevent

fraud and protect the public as it provides for assurance of title over

immovable property. The object of the Registration Act is not for

securing revenue but maintaining a record of documents of title in

public interest. To substantiate these contentions, learned Advocate

General relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel

9
Ltd. v. Dilip Construction Co. and Trideshwar Dayal v. Maheshwar

Dayal 10. He also relied on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High

Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner 11.

ii. Learned Advocate General submitted that the Amnesty Scheme

was issued under Section 9 of the Stamp Act for the purpose of

protecting executors of insufficiently stamped/unstamped documents

from the rigors/penal provisions of the Stamp Act. The purpose of the

9 (1969) 1 SCC 597

10 (1990) 1 SCC 357
11 1964 SCC OnLine Punj 130

10
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

Amnesty Scheme was to remit or reduce stamp duty and the penalty

payable on instruments that were unstamped. Learned Advocate

General pointed out the recitals of the Amnesty Scheme and submitted

that the purpose of the Amnesty Scheme is to remit or reduce stamp

duty and the penalty on the instruments chargeable under the

provisions of the Stamp Act.

iii. Learned Advocate General pointed out the consequences of

insufficiently stamping of the instruments under the Stamp Act. In that

context he pointed out Sections 33, 33A, 34, 40, 46 and 59 of the

Stamp Act. Learned Advocate General submitted that the purpose of the

Amnesty Scheme was to regularize the insufficiently stamped

documents with minimum penalty. He submitted that in the present

case penalty of Rs.25,57,800/-was waived off. The scope of Section 9 of

the Stamp Act is limited. Relaxation in the stringent time limit for

presentation of document provided under the Registration Act cannot

be granted under Section 9 of the Stamp Act. Learned Advocate General

pointed out Section 9 of the Stamp Act and submitted that there is

limited power given to the State Government, in public interest, to

reduce or remit prospectively or retrospectively, the duties with which

any instrument may be charged. It is submitted that the Scheme

contemplated under Section 9 of the Stamp Act could not make purport

to confer any benefits or grant any concessions under the Registration

11
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

Act.

iv. Learned Advocate General submitted that stringent timelines

prescribed under the Registration Act for presentation of the document

cannot be extended by the Courts. Learned Advocate General submitted

that under Section 23 of the Registration Act no document shall be

accepted for registration unless presented within 4 months from the

date of execution and Section 25 of the Registration Act provides that in

cases of urgent necessity or unavoidable circumstances the delay in

presentation of the document can be granted to the extent of additional

period of 4 months, subject to payment of fine. It is submitted that

under Section 25 of the Registration Act the Sub-Registrar does not

have the power to condone the delay in presentation of document for

registration beyond the period of 4 months from the date of the

execution of the document and the said power is with the Registrar. It is

submitted that the Registrar does not have any jurisdiction under

Section 25 of the Registration Act to condone the delay beyond the

aggregated period of 8 months provided under the said provision. To

substantiate the said contention, learned Advocate General relied on the

12
decision of this Court in Kisan Laxman Zodage v. Dalsukh Manchand

and also on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Pistons
13
and Rings Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh . Learned Advocate General

12 1938 SCC OnLine Bom 110

13 2011 SCC OnLine All 1283 : (2012) 1 All LJ 174

12
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

submitted that the High Court cannot in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction

extend the statutory period under the Registration Act for presenting a

document for registration. It is submitted that the only limited

exception recognized by the Courts is where the delay in presenting the

document was not attributable to the Petitioner on account of some

impossibility or by virtue of an act of Court. The said decisions are

premised under the principle that no man can be compelled to perform

an impossible act or be punished for the acts of a Court. To substantiate

the said contention, Learned Advocate General relied on the decision of

this Court in Akshay Vitta Management and Investment Consultancy

14
Servicees Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and the decision of the

Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Kadambari v. District Registrar of

15
Assurances and more particularly on Paragraph Nos.13 to 20 of the

same.

v. Learned Advocate General submitted that insufficiently stamped

document could be also presented for registration and the same can be

presented within the statutorily prescribed period and therefore there is

no limitation for registering a document under the provisions of the

Registration Act. It is submitted that presentation of an insufficiently

stamped document is a valid presentation under the Registration Act.

vi. Learned Advocate General submitted that if the concerned

14 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 8349 : (2016) 2 Mah LJ 395

15 2008 SCC OnLine AP 921

13
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

Agreement dated 4th October 1987 would have been presented within

the 4 months of its execution or within a further period of 4 months in

case of existence of circumstances contemplated under Section 25 of the

Registration Act then in view of insufficient payment of stamp duty the

same would have been impounded and the Collector would have

compelled the payment of proper duty and penalty and thereafter the

document could have been returned to the registering officer. Learned

Advocate General submitted that in the present case without any

explanation the document is sought to be presented for registration

after a period of about 36 years after its execution. It is further

submitted that the decisions relied on by the Petitioner are not

applicable to the dispute involved in the present Writ Petition. Learned

Advocate General pointed out various aspects and submitted that the

decisions which the Petitioner has relied are not applicable to the

present case.

vii. Learned Advocate General submitted that, in view of the legal

position the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought in the

Petition.

Factual Matrix:

7. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to set out

certain factual aspects:-

(i) The Petitioner executed an instrument styled as a “Development-

14
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

cum-Sale Agreement” dated 4th October 1987 with respect to the

immovable property bearing Plot No.D/32, Village Pahadi, Goregaon,

Taluka-Borivali admeasuring 4952 sq. mtrs. Admittedly, the said

Agreement was never presented for registration as well as not

sufficiently stamped.

(ii) The Government of Maharashtra by order/notification dated 7th

December 2023 issued under Section 9 of the Stamp Act introduced the

Maharashtra Stamp Duty Amnesty Scheme 2023.

(iii) The Petitioner filed an Application on 2nd January 2024 for

participation in the said Amnesty Scheme.

(iv) By Order dated 23rd January 2024 of the Collector of Stamps,

Borivali, it has been directed that proper stamp duty is Rs.6,39,450/-

and the penalty amount is Rs.25,57,800/- and as per the Amnesty

Scheme the stamp duty determined is of Rs.3,20,000/- and no penalty

is to be paid.

(v) On 23rd January 2024, the Petitioner paid the said stamp duty of

Rs.3,20,000/-.

(vi) On 31st January 2024, the Petitioner presented the said

Agreement dated 4th October 1987, on which deficit stamp duty has

been paid as aforesaid in the Amnesty Scheme, for registration to the

Office of the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps.

In the said letter the Petitioner has specifically stated as follows :-

15
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

“We, Atul Builders, now registered as M/s Atul Projects India

Private Limited, we say we have executed one agreement
dated 04/10/1987 (enclosed herewith) and paid full & final
consideration as mention therein. That time stamp duty &
registration was not able to done due to unavoidable
circumstances.
Now due to amnesty scheme for unpaid stamp duty, now we
have fully paid stamp duty and penalty as per scheme till
today’s date. The certificate and receipts duly paid is enclosed
herewith. Hence come to know that any document after
execution has to be registered within ‘8’ months including 4
months of grace period. So in this case that registration time
has lapsed long back, so request you to please inform us what
penalty is payable for not presented document in time for
registration. So accordingly we pay the penalty and then your
department able to register the same as soon as possible. If no
other charges/penalty are payable as we have already paid
everything under amnesty scheme. On such confirmation
you’re your side, we are willing to come immediately from
registration of the documents. In case according to your
office, if any other charges/penalty are payable for
registration, then we would like to know the legal basis.
Kindly share the legal basis as applicable.”

(Emphasis added)
(vii) By the letter dated 13th February 2024 issued by the Respondent

No.2 i.e. Joint Sub-Registrar, Class-II, Borivali No.4, Mumbai Suburban

District the said Application dated 31st January 2024 was rejected by

directing that the new document be executed, applicable stamp duty be

paid and the document be presented for registration within the time

prescribed for registration. In the said letter reliance was placed on two

Circulars dated 22nd December 2011 and 30th November 2013 issued

by Inspector General of Registration and Stamp Controller, State of

Maharashtra, Pune. The relevant part of said letter dated 13th February

2024 is as under :-

16
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

“fo”k; - Registration of Agreement dated 04/10/1987

lanHkZ - 1) vkiys fnukad 31/01/2024 jksthps i=-
2) ek- uksan.kh egkfujh{kd o eqnzkd
a fu;a=d] egkjk”Vª jkT; iq.ks ;kaps
dk;kZy;kps i= tk-dz- dz-dk-4/iz-dz-617/2011/3008 fnukad
22/12/2011
3) ek- uksan.kh egkfujh{kd o eqnzkd
a fu;a=d] egkjk”Vª jkT; iq.ks ;kaps
dk;kZy;kps i= tk-dz- dz-dk-4/iz-dz-617/2011 ¼Hkkx-
1½/13/2807 fnukad 30/11/13

egksn;]
mijksDr lanHkkZfa dr fo”k;kuqlkj vkiys fnukad 31/01/2024 jksthps
i= ;k dk;kZy;kl izkIr >kys vlwu] R;klkscr fnukad 04/10/1987 pk
nLr,sot tksM.;kr vkyk vkysyk vkgs- lnj nLr,sot ek- eqnkaz d
ftYgkf/kdkjh] cksjhoyh ;kaps dk;kZy;kdMqu eqnzkfa dr dj.;kr vkyk vkgs-
vHk; ;kstuse/;s QDr tq.ks nLr eqnzkfa dr dj.ks djhrk vHk; ;kstuk vlysus
lnj nLr,sotkph uksan.kh dj.ksckcr vki.k fopkj.kk dj.;kr vkyh vkgs-

R;kvuq”kaxkus vki.kkal dGfo.;kr ;srs dh] lanHkZ dz- 2 o 3 vUo;s

uksan.kh lanHkkZr ek- uksan.kh egkfujh{kd o eqnzkd
a fu;a=d] egkjk”Vª jkT;
iq.ks ;kaps dk;kZy;kps lkscr tksMysY;k ifji=dke/;s uewn izek.ks uO;kus
nLr,sot d:u ;Fkksfpr eqnzakd ‘kqYd Hk:u nLrkrhy fygwu ns.kkj o ?ks.kkj
;kauh nLr fu”iknu d:u rlsp uksan.kh vf/kfu;e 1908 e/khy dk;nsf’kj
rjrqnhaph iqrZrk d:u nLr uksan.khl lknj dsY;kl lnj nLrkph uksan.kh
djrk ;sbZy-”
(Emphasis added)

English translation of the said letter as provided by the Petitioner is as

follows :-

“Sub.: Registration of Agreement dated 04/10/1987

Ref.: 1) Your letter dtd. 31/01/2024.

2) Letter of Hon’ble Inspector General of Registration

and Stamp Controller, State of Maharashtra, Pune
O.W. No. O.4/M. No. 617/2011/3008, Dated
22/12/2011.

3) Letter of the office of Inspector General of

Registration and Stamp Controller, State of
Maharashtra Pune O.W. No. O.4/C. No. 617/2011
(Part – 1)/13/2807, Dtd. 30/11/13.

17
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

Sir,
As per above referred subject your letter Dtd. 31/01/2024
received to this office, along with it the document Dtd.
04/10/1987 is enclosed. The said document is stamped by the
office of Hon’ble Stamp Collector, Borivali. In the Abhay
Scheme there is Abhay Scheme only for the stamping the old
documents therefore you was enquired about the registration
of the said document.
In that view it is inform you that, under reference No.
2 and 3 in respect of the registration as per mentioned in the
circular enclosed of the office of Hon’ble Inspector General of
Registration and Stamp Collector, State of Maharashtra
executing fresh document paying the proper stamp duty
admitting the deed by the Giving in writing and Taking of the
deed also complying the legal provisions of the Registration
Act, 1908 if produced the deed for registration then the
registration of the said deed can be done.”

(viii) The present Writ Petition has been filed on 6th May 2024 inter

alia challenging the legality and validity of said order dated 13th

February 2024, of said circulars dated 22nd December 2011 and 30th

November 2013 issued by the Respondent No.3-Inspector General of

Registration and Controller of Stamps, Maharashtra and also seeking

further reliefs as set out earlier.

(ix) In the impugned order dated 13th February 2024 there is

reference to Circulars dated 22nd December 2011 and 30th November

2013 issued by the Respondent No.3-Inspector General of Registration

and Controller of Stamps, Maharashtra. By said Circular dated 22nd

December 2011, the Respondent No.3 issued instructions to the Sub-

Registrar under the Registration Act, not to register the confirmation or

declaration deeds that sought to indirectly register documents which

18
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

were annexed to the deed beyond the statutory period prescribed. The

said Circular dated 22nd December 2011 has been thereafter modified

by Circular dated 30th November 2013, by which it is clarified that a

new document by paying applicable stamp duty can be registered

within the timeline as per the provisions of the Registration Act.

8. In the light of above factual aspects, it is necessary to consider the

contentions raised. It is the basic contention of the Petitioner that as the

valid stamp duty has been paid on 23rd January 2024 which has been

determined under the said Amnesty Scheme by order dated 23rd

January 2024 on said Development-cum-Sale Agreement dated 4th

October 1987, there is no impediment in registration of the document.

It is the submission that in the Amnesty Scheme which has been issued

by Order dated 7th December 2023 by the Government of Maharashtra

under Section 9 of the Stamp Act, it has been specifically set out that

the Government of Maharashtra remits or reduces stamp duty and

penalty to the extent as specified in the Schedules appended to the said

Circular dated 7th December 2023, which are executed between 1st

January 1980 to 31st December 2020, irrespective of whether the

instruments are presented for registration thereto or not, subject to the

conditions as set out in the said Circular dated 7th December 2023. It is

further submitted that as the Petitioner has paid the stamp duty as per

the said Amnesty Scheme and as the said Amnesty Scheme specifically

19
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

records that the same is applicable to the documents which have been

executed from 1st January 1980 till 31st December 2020, it is the

submission of Mr. Jain, learned Counsel that it is the legitimate

expectation of the Petitioner that the document will be registered after

payment of the stamp duty as per the Amnesty Scheme. He submitted

that the action of the Registering Authority asking the Petitioner to get

executed fresh document by paying fresh stamp duty is hit by the

doctrine of promissory estoppel. On the other hand, it is the submission

of learned Advocate General that the provisions of the Stamp Act and

the Registration Act operates in different fields and therefore payment

of stamp duty under the Amnesty Scheme which is under the Stamp Act

will have no effect on the time period within which the document is to

be presented for registration as provided under the Registration Act.

Reasoning:

9. For appreciating the contentions of Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for

the Petitioner and Dr. Birendra Saraf, learned Advocate General, it is

necessary to consider the Scheme of both these enactments namely the

Stamp Act and the Registration Act, as is relevant for deciding the issue

involved in the present Writ Petition.

Scheme of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act:

10. The scheme of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act for the

purpose of the issues which have been raised in this Writ Petition, is as

20
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

under :-

(i) The Registration Act is a Central legislation enacted to

consolidate the enactments relating to the registration of documents.

(ii) In Delhi Cloth & General Mills (supra), the Punjab and Haryana

High Court has discussed the scheme of the Registration Act and for

that purpose relied on the various observations made in the decision of

Veerappa Chetty v. Kadiresan Chetty 16, it has been held that the primary

object of registration of instruments is to check forgery and to provide

good evidence of the genuineness of written instruments.

(iii) In the decision of Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zamindary

Company 17, while dealing with the Registration Act, it is observed that

the purpose of the statute is to provide a method of public registration

of documents. After noticing various important provisions of the

Registration Act, it has been held that it can be safely concluded from

the entire scheme and purpose of the Act that it does not provide for the

collection of taxes. It makes provisions in public interest for record of

documents and mainly documents of title. A department has to be

established and maintained and for that purpose the Act only provides

for levy of fees.

(iii) As far as the Stamp Act is concerned, it is a State legislation. As

observed by the Supreme Court in the decision of Hindustan Steel

16 20 I.C. 385
17 AIR 1919 PC 79

21
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

(supra), the Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for

the State on certain classes of instruments. The stringent provisions of

the Act are conceived in the interest of the revenue.

(iv) Thus, the distinction between the objects of these two enactments

i.e. Stamp Act and Registration Act is very relevant for deciding the

present Writ Petition. The Registration Act makes provisions in public

interest for record of documents and mainly documents of title has been

enacted to check forgery, prevent fraud, to protect the public and to

provide good evidence of the genuineness of written instruments,

whereas the Stamp Act is a fiscal statute enacted to secure revenue for

the State on certain classes of instruments.

Scope of Amnesty Scheme under the Stamp Act:

11. As the reliefs sought in the present Writ Petition are on the basis

of the Amnesty Scheme dated 7th December 2023 [Pages 136 – 142], it

is required to consider the Amnesty Scheme in detail. The said Amnesty

Scheme is framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (a) of Section 9 of the Stamp Act. The said Section

9 reads as under :-

“9. Power to reduce, remit or compound duties

The State Government [if satisfied that it is necessary
to do so in the public interest] may, by rule or order published
in the Official Gazette,—
(a) reduce or remit, whether prospectively or
retrospectively, in the whole or any part of the State the
[duties or penalty, if only, or both] with which any

22
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

instruments or any particular class of instruments or any of

the instruments belonging to such class, or any instruments
when executed by or in favour of any particular class of
persons, or by or in favour of any members of such class, are
chargeable, and
(b) provide for the composition or consolidation of duties
in the case of issues by any incorporated company or other
body corporate of bonds or marketable securities other than
debentures.”
(Emphasis added)

Thus, what is provided by Section 9(a) that power is given to the State

Government to reduce or remit, whether prospectively or

retrospectively, in the whole or any part of the State, the duties or

penalty, if only, or both with which the instruments contemplated under

Section 9(a) are chargeable. The State Government is empowered to

reduce or remit or compound duties in the public interest.

12. It is required to be noted that under the said Amnesty Scheme,

the instruments are classified according to the periods they were

executed in the following manner :-

(i) The instruments which are executed between 1st January

1980 and 31st December 2000. [Schedule-I]

(ii) The instruments which are executed between 1st January

2001 and 31st December 2020. [Schedule-II]

The reduction in the amount for the period from 1st January 1980 till

31st December 2000 is 100% for the amount of stamp duty of Rs.1 upto

Rs.1,00,000/-, and 50% for the amount exceeding Rs.1,00,000/-. As far

23
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

as Schedule-II is concerned, the same covers instruments which are

executed between 1st January 2001 and 31st December 2020.

13. As far as the present case is concerned, the Development-cum-

Sale Agreement is dated 4th October 1987 and therefore the Petitioner’s

case is covered by Schedule-I of the Amnesty Scheme dated 7th

December 2023. The conditions of the said Amnesty Scheme are as

follows :-

“(1) The said Amnesty Scheme-2023 shall be applicable only to

the instruments as specified in the Annexure which are
executed on any amount of Stamped Paper exclusively sold
by the Government approved Stamp Vendors or any agency
or any competent authority authorised by the Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority in this behalf.

(2) Any type of instrument or document which is executed on

plain paper without any stamp duty shall not be eligible or
accepted for the benefit of remission or reduction in stamp
duty or penalty under the said Amnesty Scheme-2023; i.e.
unstamped instruments which are executed on plain papers
shall not be eligible for any benefit under the said Amnesty
Scheme-2023;

(3) The applicant shall submit an application in the Form

appended hereto, along with original instrument and self-
attested copies of supporting documents on or before the
last day of the period mentioned in the Schedules
appended here to. Such an application shall be made
through online system of the Inspector General of
Registration and Controller of Stamps, Maharashtra State,
Pune.

(4) No refund shall be granted where stamp duty or penalty on

the deficient portion of duty has already been paid on any
of such instruments prior to the date of publication of this
Order in the Maharashtra Government Gazette.

24
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

(5) The party to the instrument or his successor in title or

power of attorney holder may apply for remission or
reduction of stamp duty or penalty under this Order.

(6) The applicant shall be required to pay the deficient portion

of stamp duty and penalty as per this order within a period
of seven days from the date of receipt of the demand notice
issued by the concerned Collector of Stamps, failing which
the applicant shall not be entitled for the benefits provided
under this order.

(7) For the purpose of assessment, the applicant has to submit

proper evidence thereof as per requirements in the Annual
Statement of Rates and Guidelines issued by the Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State.

(8) The said instruments, for which action under section 31(4),
32A, 33, 33A or 46 of the said Act has already been
initiated or where appeal or review application is pending
for decision, before any Court or Authority under the
provisions of the said Act, shall be entitled for the benefits
under this Order. However, to avail of the benefits under
this Order, the applicant shall have to make a fresh
application in original in the Form appended hereto:

Provided that, in case where appeal or review

application is pending for decision, before any Court or
Authority under the provisions of the said Act, the applicant
shall have to unconditionally withdraw the case and submit
a declaration to that effect along with application under
this Order.”

(Emphasis added)
14. Perusal of the said Amnesty Scheme clearly shows that the same

is in consonance with the object of the Stamp Act. As already noted

above, the Stamp Act is a fiscal statute enacted to secure revenue for

the State on certain classes of instruments. In the public interest, the

Government of Maharashtra has issued the Amnesty Scheme by

25
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

exercising power under Section 9 of the Stamp Act for the purpose of

remitting or reducing the stamp duty and penalty. It is important to note

that the Applicant shall be required to pay the deficient portion of

stamp duty and penalty as per the Amnesty Scheme within a period of

seven days from the date of receipt of the demand notice issued by the

concerned Collector of Stamps, failing which the applicant shall not be

entitled for the benefits provided under the Amnesty Scheme. Thus, the

Amnesty Scheme has been issued to secure revenue for the State. For

the purpose of ensuring that proper stamp duty is paid on the

instruments various provisions have been made in the Stamp Act.

Provisions of Stamp Act - To secure Revenue for the State:

15. Section 33 of the Stamp Act provides that subject to the

provisions of Section 32-A, every person, having by law or consent of

parties authority to receive evidence and every person in charge of a

public office, before whom any instrument chargeable, in his opinion,

with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions,

shall if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped,

impound the same, irrespective whether the instrument is or is not valid

in law. Thus, it is clear that while exercising power under Section 33 of

the Stamp Act, the Authority exercising that power is empowered to

impound the instrument irrespective whether the instrument is not valid

in law. The said Section 33 of the Stampt Act makes it very clear that

26
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

the said provision is made to secure revenue for the State. The said

provision is made in furtherance of the object of the Stamp Act which is

a fiscal statute and the purpose of the same is to secure revenue for the

State. In fact, it is also relevant to note Section 33-A of the Stamp Act,

which is concerning impounding of instruments after registration.

Section 33-A of the Stamp Act provides that when through mistake or

otherwise any instrument which is not duly stamped is registered under

the Registration Act, the Registering Officer may call for the original

instrument from the party and, after giving the party an opportunity of

being heard and recording the reasons in writing and furnishing a copy

thereof to the party, impound the same. Thus, the said provision also

makes it very clear that the purpose of the Stamp Act is only to secure

revenue for the State.

16. Section 34 of the Stamp Act provides that, instruments not duly

stamped are inadmissible in evidence and it further provides that any

such instrument shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in

evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable and

a penalty at the rate of 2 per cent of the deficient portion of the stamp

duty. There are certain other provisions made in the Stamp Act to

ensure that proper stamp duty is paid. Thus, it is clear that all these

provisions are made to secure revenue for the State.

17. Section 46 of the Stamp Act provides that all duties, penalties and

27
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

other sums required to be paid under the said Act, may be recovered by

the Collector by distress and sale of the immovable property of the

person from whom the same are due as an arrears of land revenue.

Execution of any instrument with the intention to evade the duty, is an

offence under Section 59 and on conviction for every such offence be

punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less

than one month but which may extend to six months and with fine

which may be extended to five thousand rupees.

18. Thus, it is clear that to secure revenue for the State which is the

object of the Stamp Act, various provisions are made in the Stamp Act

to further the said objective.

Stringent timelines provided under Registration Act for presentation of

documents to the Registering Authority- To check forgery, to provide

good evidence of the genuineness of the written instruments and to

protect the Public Interest.

19. As far as the Registration Act is concerned, the important Sections

which are relevant for the present Writ Petition, are found in Part IV of

the Registration Act. Section 23 is concerning time for presenting

documents. The said Section 23 reads as under :-

“23. Time for presenting documents.—Subject to the

provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document
other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless
presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four
months from the date of its execution:

28
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

Provided that a copy of a decree or order may be

presented within four months from the day on which the
decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within
four months from the day on which it becomes final.”

(Emphasis added)

Thus, it is clear that it is specifically provided in Section 23 that no

document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless

presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months

from the date of its execution.

20. Thus, it is very clear that outer limit is provided of four month for

presentation of the document to the Registration Officer. Section 25 of

the Registration Act makes provision where delay in presentation is

unavoidable. Said Section 25 reads as under :-

“25. Provision where delay in presentation is unavoidable.—

(1) If, owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, any
document executed, or copy of a decree or order made, in
[India] is not presented for registration till after the
expiration of the time hereinbefore prescribed in that behalf,
the Registrar, in cases where the delay in presentation does
not exceed four months, may direct that, on payment of a fine
not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration
fee, such document shall be accepted for registration.

(2) Any application for such direction may be lodged with a

Sub- Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar
to whom he is subordinate.”

(Emphasis added)
Thus, it is clear that the initial period of 4 months as provided by

Section 23 can be extended by further period of 4 months under Section

29
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

25 in the cases which are covered under Section 25.

21. It is also important to note Section 26 of the Registration Act,

which reads as under :-

“26. Documents executed out of [India].—When a

document purporting to have been executed by all or any of
the parties out of [India] is not presented for registration till
after the expiration of the time hereinbefore prescribed in that
behalf, the registering officer, if satisfied—

(a) that the instrument was so executed, and

(b) that it has been presented for registration within four

months after its arrival in [India], may, on payment of the
proper registration fee, accept such document for
registration.”

(Emphasis added)
Thus, what is provided is that when a document is executed out of

India, the same is required to be presented to the Registering Officer

within 4 months after its arrival in India.

22. Thus, analysis of all these provisions under the Registration Act

makes it clear that under the Registration Act, 4 months is the

maximum period provided for presenting the document for registration

as per Section 23 which can be extended for further period of 4 months

where the facts as contemplated under Section 25 of the Registration

Act are existing.

23. In this context, it is also important to note Section 23-A of the

Registration Act, which has been inserted by Act 15 of 1917. As per

Section 23-A, a document requiring registration has been accepted for

30
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

registration by a Registrar or Sub-Registrar from a person not duly

empowered to present the same and has been registered, any person

claiming under such document may, within four months from his first

becoming aware that the registration of such document is invalid,

present such document or cause the same to be presented, in

accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Registration Act for re-

registration in the office of the Registrar of the district in which the

document was originally registered.

24. Thus, it is very clear that under the Registration Act very stringent

timelines are prescribed for presentation of document and that the

officer exercising power under the Registration Act does not have power

to condone delay in presentation of document for registration beyond

the period of 4 months from the date of the execution of document. The

Registrar has discretion to condone the delay not exceeding 4 months, if

the case is made out under Section 25 of the Registration Act.

25. Thus, it is required to note that the provisions made under the

Registration Act, providing for stringent timelines, are required to be

understood from the object of the Registration Act. The said object is to

prevent fraud and protect the public as the same provides for assurance

of title over immovable property. It is very clear that the object of the

Registration Act is not for securing revenue but maintaining a record of

documents of title in public interest. The stringent timelines prescribed

31
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

under the Registration Act for presentation of document have been

made to prevent fraud and protect the public.

26. In view of the stringent timelines provided under the Registration

Act, it is required to appreciate the submissions of learned Advocate

General that the High Court cannot in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction

extend the statutory period under the Registration Act for presenting a

document for registration. Learned Advocate General has submitted

that the only limited exception recognized by the Court is where the

delay in presenting the document was not attributable to the Petitioner

and the delay has occured on account of some impossibility or by virtue

of an act of Court. Learned Advocate General submitted that the said

decisions are premised on the principle that no man can be compelled

to perform an impossible act or be punished for the acts of a Court.

Learned Advocate General is right in submitting that there is no

limitation registering a document under the provisions of the

Registration Act, if it is presented within the statutorily prescribed

period. It is submitted that the presentation of insufficiently stamped

document is a valid presentation under the Registration Act.

Whether the document on which full stamp duty has been paid as per

the provisions of the Stamp Act under the Amnesty Scheme can be

permitted to be registered under the Registration Act, even if the

stringent timelines provided under the Registration Act, have not been

32
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

complied with:-

27. In view of the above discussion of the object of the Registration

Act and the Stamp Act, it is necessary to consider the case of the

Petitioner that the document on which full stamp duty has been paid as

per the provisions of the Stamp Act under the Amnesty Scheme can be

permitted to be registered under the Registration Act, even if the

stringent timelines provided under the Registration Act, have not been

complied with.

28. It is the main submission of Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the

Petitioner that a person pays stamp duty on an instrument involving

transaction of immovable property so that he can get the document

registered with Registering Authority. Even in the Amnesty Scheme also

the instrument not presented for registration though executed between

the period of 1st January 1980 to 31st December 2020, is permitted to

get advantage of the Amnesty Scheme. He submitted that the Petitioner

bonafidely acted under the Amnesty Scheme launched by the State and

paid the stamp duty so that the Agreement gets registered. He

submitted that, in fact, a legitimate expectation is created in the general

public that after paying stamp duty under the Amnesty Scheme,

instrument shall be registered without any further demand of stamp

duty. Asking a fresh stamp duty on the fresh document confirming the

same transaction is totally barred by doctrine of promissory estoppel.

33
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

29. To substantiate the said contention, Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for

the Petitioner relied on the decision of Chitvan Cooperative Housing

Society Limited (supra). More particularly, he relied on Paragraph

No.5.4 of the same, which reads as under :-

“5.4 The present case thus stand on its distinct footing that
the petitioner was granted benefit of the Amnesty Scheme.
The Deputy Collector had assessed the stamp duty and after
giving remission under the Amnesty Scheme, accepted the
amount. The necessary certificate was issued and the
proceedings under Section 32A were closed. The authorities,
including the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, were
thereafter estopped from demanding further amount on any
ground whatsoever when they themselves had treated the
petitioner under the Amnesty Scheme and the necessary
certificate about the payment of stamp duty was issued. It was
not permissible in law for the authority to resile therefrom
under the purported exercise of powers under Section 53A of
the Act, the authority having given the benefit of the Amnesty
Scheme.”

30. For appreciating the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the

said decision of Chitvan Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra), it

is necessary to consider Paragraph Nos.3 and 3.1, wherein the factual

position is set out. The said Paragraph Nos.3 and 3.1 read as under :-

“3. The petitioner purchased land and the sale document

in respect of the transaction was presented on 13th February,
1997 at Serial No.565 with the office of Sub Registrar,
Ahmedabad - 3 (Memnagar). The Deputy Collector, Stamp
Duty Valuation, in view of the market value, assessed the
deficit stamp duty to be Rs.01,01,400/-. It appears that the
Amnesty Scheme was offered by the Government. The case of
the petitioner fell within the parameters of the Scheme and
the document of sale of the petitioner was liable to be
subjected to the duty under the Amnesty Scheme. Accordingly
the petitioner was given benefit of the Scheme and was asked
to pay amount of Rs. 50,700/- plus penalty of Rs. 250/- plus

34
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

further penalty of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner paid the said

amount as per the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme under
Challan No.963 on 30th June, 2006. A copy of Challan
evidencing the payment is on record. The Deputy Collector,
Stamp Duty Valuation, closed the proceedings thereupon. On
the same date, the document was registered.

3.1 It appears that after the said event happened on 30th

June, 2006, respondent No.2-Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, issued notice to the petitioner on 20th November,
2010. Thereafter the respondent No.2 stated that market
value of the property under the sale deed of the petitioner
was higher and the petitioner was called upon to pay the
additional amount of stamp duty of Rs. 02,85,520/-. The
respondent No.2-Chief Controlling Revenue Authority passed
order dated 19th December, 2011 maintaining the demand,
which is the impugned order.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus, it is clear that as far as this decision is concerned, the factual

position shows that the document was presented on 13th February 1997

to the Registering Authority and the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty

Valuation, has assessed the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,01,400/-. It

appears that, by taking benefit of the Amnesty Scheme the Petitioner in

the said Petition has paid stamp duty of Rs.50,700/- plus penalty of

Rs.250/- plus further penalty of Rs.500/-. Thereafter, the Authorities

under the Stamp Act issued notice under Section 53A calling upon the

said Petitioner to pay an additional amount of stamp duty of

Rs.2,85,520/-. In that context, the Gujarat High Court in said Paragraph

No.5.4, has observed that once the Petitioner is granted benefit of

Amnesty Scheme, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was

thereafter estopped from demanding further amount on any ground

35
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

whatsoever. Thus, this decision is not relevant for the purpose of

deciding the present case. In the present case, the impugned Order is

passed by the Registering Authority exercising jurisdiction under the

Registration Act, whereas in the said decision of Gujrat High Court the

impugned order was passed by the authorities exercising power under

the Stamp Act.

Contention Regarding Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel:

31. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision

of the Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State

of U.P. 18 and more particularly on Paragraph Nos.18, 19, 22, 23, 24 and

25, wherein the Supreme Court has considered the doctrine of

promissory estoppel. The said Paragraphs read as under :-

“18. There has so far not been any decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States taking the view that the doctrine of
promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against the
Government. The trend in the State courts, of late, has been
strongly in favour of the application of the doctrine of
promissory estoppel against the Government and public
bodies “where interests of justice, morality and common
fairness clearly dictate that course”. It is being increasingly
felt that “that the Government ought to set a high standard in
its dealings and relationships with citizens and the word of a
duly authorised Government agent, acting within the scope of
his authority, ought to be as good as a Government bond”.

19. When we turn to the Indian law on the subject it is

heartening to find that in India not only has the doctrine of
promissory estoppel been adopted in its fullness but it has
been recognized as affording a cause of action to the person
to whom the promise is made. The requirement of
consideration has not been allowed to stand in the way of
18 (1979) 2 SCC 409 : 1978 SCC OnLine SC 373

36
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

enforcement of such promise. The doctrine of promissory

estoppel has also been applied against the Government and
the defence based on executive necessity has been
categorically negatived. It is remarkable that as far back as
1880, long before the doctrine of promissory estoppel was
formulated by Denning, J., in England, a Division Bench of
two English Judges in the Calcutta High Court applied the
doctrine of promissory estoppel and recognised a cause of
action founded upon it in the Ganges Manufacturing Co. v.
Sourujmull [(1880) ILR 5 Cal 669 : 5 CLR 533] . The doctrine
of promissory estoppel was also applied against the
Government in a case subsequently decided by the Bombay
High Court in Municipal Corporation of Bombay v. Secretary
of State [(1905) ILR 29 Bom 580 : 7 Bom LR 27].

22. ...

23. ...

24. ...

The law may, therefore, now be taken to be settled as a result

of this decision, that where the Government makes a promise
knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the
promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it,
alters his position, the Government would be held bound by
the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the
Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding
that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise
is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by
Article 299 of the Constitution…… If the Government does
not want its freedom of executive action to be hampered or
restricted, the Government need not make a promise knowing
or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and
the promisee would alter his position relying upon it. But if
the Government makes such a promise and the promisee acts
in reliance upon it and alters his position, there is no reason
why the Government should not be compelled to make good
such promise like any other private individual. The law
cannot acquire legitimacy and gain social acceptance unless it
accords with the moral values of the society and the constant
endeavour of the Courts and the legislature, must, therefore,
be to close the gap between law and morality and bring about
as near an approximation between the two as possible. The
doctrine of promissory estoppel is a significant judicial

37
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

contribution in that direction. But it is necessary to point out

that since the docrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable
doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires. If it can be
shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as
they have transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the
Government to the promise made by it, the Court would not
raise an equity in favour of the promisee and enforce the
promise against the Government. The doctrine of promissory
estoppel would be displaced in such a case because, on the
facts, equity would not require that the Government should
be held bound by the promise made by it. When the
Government is able to show that in view of the facts as have
transpired since the making of the promise, public interest
would be prejudiced if the Government were required to carry
out the promise, the Court would have to balance the public
interest in the Government carrying out a promise made to a
citizen which has induced the citizen to act upon it and alter
his position and the public interest likely to suffer if the
promise were required to be carried out by the Government
and determine which way the equity lies. It would not be
enough for the Government just to say that public interest
requires that the Government should not be compelled to
carry out the promise or that the public interest would suffer
if the Government were required to honour it….. If the
Government wants to resist the liability, it will have to
disclose to the Court what are the facts and circumstances on
account of which the Government claims to be exempt from
the liability and it would be for the Court to decide whether
those facts and circumstances are such as to render it
inequitable to enforce the liability against the Government.
…. It is only if the Court is satisfied, on proper and adequate
material placed by the Government, that overriding public
interest requires that the Government should not be held
bound by the promise but should be free to act unfettered by
it, that the Court would refuse to enforce the promise against
the Government. The Court would not act on the mere ipse
dixit of the Government, for it is the Court which has to
decide and not the Government whether the Government
should be held exempt from liability. This is the essence of the
rule of law. The burden would be upon the Government to
show that the public interest in the Government acting
otherwise than in accordance with the promise is so
overwhelming that it would be inequitable to hold the
Government bound by the promise and the Court would insist

38
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

on a highly rigorous standard of proof in the discharge of this

burden. But even where there is no such overriding public
interest, it may still be competent to the Government to resile
from the promise “on giving reasonable notice, which need
not be a formal notice, giving the promisee a reasonable
opportunity of resuming his position” provided of course it is
possible for the promisee to restore status quo ante. If,
however, the promisee cannot resume his position, the
promise would become final and irrevocable. Vide Emmanuel
Avodeji Ajaye v. Briscoe [(1964) 3 All ER 556 : (1964) 1 WLR
1326].

25. …

“Public bodies are as much bound as private individuals

to carry out representations of facts and promises made
by them, relying on which other persons have altered
their position to their prejudice. The obligation arising
against an individual out of his representation
amounting to a promise may be enforced ex contractu by
a person who acts upon the promise : when the law
requires that a contract enforceable at law against a
public body shall be in certain form or be executed in the
manner prescribed by statute, the obligation may be if
the contract be not in that form be enforced against it in
appropriate cases in equity.”

...

“If our nascent democracy is to thrive different standards

of conduct for the people and the public bodies cannot
ordinarily be permitted. A public body is, in our
judgment, not exempt from liability to carry out its
obligation arising out of representations made by it
relying upon which a citizen has altered his position to
his prejudice.”

This Court refused to make a distinction between a private

individual and a public body so far as the doctrine of
promissory estoppel is concerned.”

(Emphasis added)
32. Learned Advocate General relied on Paragraph Nos.27 and 28 of

the decision of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (supra). By

39
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

relying on the said Paragraphs, it is the submission of the learned

Advocate General that where the Government owes a duty to the public

to act in a particular manner, and here obviously duty means a course of

conduct enjoined by law, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be

invoked for preventing the Government from acting in discharge of its

duty under the law. Reliance is placed on the observations of the

Supreme Court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be

applied in teeth of an obligation or liability imposed by law. It is

submitted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be availed to

permit or condone a breach of the law.

33. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court on which Mr.

Jain, learned Counsel, has relied, wherein it is specifically held that the

doctrine of promissory estoppel has also been applied against the

Government and that a party who has acting in reliance on a promise

made by the Government, altered his position, is entitled to enforce the

promise against the Government, even though the promise is not in the

form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 and that Article

does not militate against the applicability of the doctrine of promissory

estoppel against the Government, it is required to be noted that as

contended by the learned Advocate General, the non stamping of the

instrument with proper stamp duty in terms of the provisions of the

Stamp Act entailed the following consequences:-

40
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

(i) As per Section 33 of the Stamp Act, if the agreement which

is produced before the Authority contemplated under Section 33

and is not duly stamped, the Authority is empowered to impound

the same. In fact, even after registration of the instrument also

power is given under Section 33-A of the Stamp Act to impound the

instrument if it is not duly stamped.

(ii) Section 34 of the Stamp Act provides that instruments not

duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence.

(iii) Section 46 of the Stamp Act provides that all duties,

penalties and other sums required to be paid under this Act, may be

recovered by the Collector by distress and sale of the movable

property of the person from whom the same are due as an arrear of

land revenue. Execution of any instrument with the intention to

evade the duty is an offence under Section 59.

34. Thus, it is clear that, if proper stamp duty is paid on the

instrument governed by the provisions of the Stamp Act, then the above

consequences are avoided. It is required to be noted that both the Acts

i.e. Stamp Act and Registration Act in different spheres and as noted

earlier the object of both the Acts is different. The object of the Stamp

Act is to secure revenue for the State. Thus, there is no limitation or

timeline provided for collection of duty on insufficiently stamped

documents, as the object of the Act is to collect the duty and penalty

41
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

thereto. Thus, as per the Amnesty Scheme, in fact, the promise which

has been given by the State Government is that if the proper stamp duty

as per the Amnesty Scheme is deposited within the time limit provided

in the Amnesty Scheme, then by exercising power under Section 9, the

State Government may reduce, remit or compound prospectively or

retrospectively, in the whole or any part of the duties or penalty on the

instruments. Thus, as the Amnesty Scheme is issued under Section 9,

the promise, if any, given by the Amnesty Scheme is to the effect that as

provided in the Amnesty Scheme the stamp duty is reduced or remitted

or compounded and the same has the effect of protection from the

consequences under the Stamp Act.

35. The decision of Chitvan Cooperative Housing Society Limited

(supra), on which Mr. Jain, learned Counsel has relied, is required to be

appreciated from the above context and in the light of consequences

which a person who has not paid stamp duty under the provisions of

Stamp Act may suffer. Even the decision of the Supreme Court in

Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) regarding promissory

estoppel is also required to be appreciated from this context. The

observations of the Supreme Court is that a party who has, acting in

reliance on a promise made by the Government, altered his position, is

entitled to enforce the promise against the Government, even though

the promise is not in the form of a formal contract as required by Article

42
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

299. Thus, if any promise is to be culled out from the Amnesty Scheme

under Section 9 of the Stamp Act as well as the Scheme of the Stamp

Act, the promise is that once under the Amnesty Scheme proper stamp

duty as determined is paid within the time limit as granted by the order

passed under the Amnesty Scheme, for the purpose of the Stamp Act

the said document/instrument will be treated as on which proper stamp

duty has been paid and for the purpose of Sections 33, 34, 40, 46 and

59, the same will be considered as the document on which the proper

stamp duty has been paid.

36. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on the

decision of the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra

19
Metallics Ltd. to support his submission regarding applicability of

doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. More

particularly, he relied on Paragraph Nos.20, 25, 27, 37 and 42 of the

said decision. However, the discussion with respect to the decision in

Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) is also applicable to the

said decision.

37. It is the submission of Mr. Jain, learned Counsel that by the

impugned Order dated 13th February 2024, the Petitioner has been

asked to get execute a new document by paying appropriate stamp duty

and then present the same for registration within the time prescribed

under Registration Act, after complying with all the legal requirements.
19 (2023) 10 SCC 634

43
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

He submitted that by the impugned Order what is sought to be directed

to be done by the Petitioner is to again pay the stamp duty. He

submitted that the same is impermissible as the Petitioner has paid the

appropriate stamp duty as per the provisions of the Stamp Act. He

therefore submitted that by the impugned Order the Authorities under

the Registration Act has directed the Petitioner in effect to pay stamp

duty which is not impermissible and the said demand is illegal.

However, it is required to be noted that the said contention would have

been correct if the Authorities under the Registration Act or if for that

matter under the Stamp Act would have directed the Petitioner to pay

the stamp duty on the subject document i.e. document of Development-

cum-Sale Agreement dated 4th October 1987.

38. However, what the Registration Authorities has directed that as

the Petitioner wanted to get the said document dated 4th October 1987

registered, in view of the specific provisions of Section 23 read with

Section 25 of the Registration Act which prescribes strict timeline for

presentation of document, the Registering Authorities have informed

the Petitioner that the same could not be registered and further asked

the Petitioner to execute a new document and after payment of proper

stamp duty present the same for registration. The Circulars which are

annexed to the said Letter dated 13th February 2024 are dated 22nd

December 2011 and 30th November 2013. Thus, what is contemplated

44
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

is that a new document will be executed and the same will be presented

to the Registering Authorities within time limit prescribed by the

Registration Act.

39. It is the submission of Mr. Jain, learned Counsel that once the

stamp duty is paid under the Amnesty Scheme, no further stamp duty is

required to be paid even on such new document, assuming that the said

new document is necessary. However, the said submission that payment

of stamp duty will apply only to the said Development-cum-Sale

Agreement dated 4th October 1987 and the same will not apply to the

registration of a fresh document, is not legal and it is very clear that the

Scheme of the Stamp Act and the Scheme of the Registration Act are

totally different and distinct. Under the Registration Act, strict timelines

are given for presentation of document.

40. As already noted herein above, the Registration Act has been

enacted to prevent fraud and protect the public as it provides for

assurance of title over immovable property. The object of the

Registration Act is not for securing revenue but maintaining a record of

documents of title in public interest. Thus, allowing registration of the

document dated 4th October 1987 which has been presented for the

first time for registration on 31st January, 2024 i.e. after about 37 years,

cannot be allowed in view of specific timelines provided in Section 23

read with Section 25 of the Registration Act. It is very clear that the said

45
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

strict timelines are provided just to prevent fraud and protect the public

as the purpose of the Registration Act is to a maintain record of

documents of title in public interest. Thus, by no stretch of imagination,

payment of stamp duty under the Amnesty Scheme will have the effect

of altering the strict timelines provided under the Registration Act for

presentation of documents.

41. Dr. Birendra Saraf, learned Advocate General is right in

contending that there is no power to condone delay in presentation of

document for registration beyond the period of 4 months from the date

of execution of the document as per Section 23 of the Registration Act

and the said period can be at the most extended by further period of 4

months by the Registrar in exercise of power under Section 25 of the

Registration Act. He is right in submitting that the High Court cannot in

its Writ Jurisdiction extend the statutory period under the Registration

Act for presenting a document for registration.

42. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strongly relied on

the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Goel (supra). More

particularly, he relied on Paragraph Nos.11 to 14, 17, 18, 22 and 23. In

said decision of S.P. Goel (supra), the challenge was to the Judgment

and Order dated 18th May 1995 passed by the National Consumer

Redressal Commission, New Delhi, where the complaint of the

Appellant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed on

46
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

the ground that the District Consumer Forum as also the State

Commission had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim Petition

filed by the Appellant to the effect that there was deficiency of service

on the part of the Respondent in not registering the document or issuing

certified copy thereof in spite of full registration charges having been

paid. The factual position in the dispute before the Supreme Court in

S.P. Goel (supra) is set out in Paragraph Nos.3 to 6. The dispute is

concerning registration of will. Section 23 of the Registration Act

prescribing stringent timeline of 4 months specifically exclude the

document of will. Thus, the dispute in the said decision of S.P. Goel

(supra), is totally different. The factual aspects in the present matter is

that the document which has been executed on 4th October 1987 is

presented for registration for the first time on 31st January, 2024 i.e.

after about 37 years. The question concerning that the document is

presented for registration after strict timeline provided for the

Registration Act is not before the Supreme Court in S. P. Goel (supra).

The Supreme Court was considering whether refusal to register a

document of will amount to deficiency of service. Thus, the above

observations of the Supreme Court are required to be appreciated from

that perspective.

43. In fact, the Supreme Court has relied on Section 1 of the Judicial

Officers’ Protection Act, 1850, wherein it is provided that no Judge,

47
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector, or other person acting

judicially shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court for any act done or

ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether

or not within the limits of his jurisdiction. It has been observed that,

apart from that, reliance is placed on Section 86 of the Registration Act,

which provides that no Registering Officer shall be liable to any suit,

claim or demand by reason of anything in good faith done or refused in

his official capacity. It has been further observed that the said Section

86 provides that complete protection to the Registering Officer for

things done bonafide by him under the Act. Thus, the Supreme Court

has upheld the decision of the National Consumer Redressal

Commission, New Delhi, which has held that the District Consumer

Forum as also the State Commission had no jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon the claim of a person that as his document is not registered, he is

seeking relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming

himself to be the consumer. Thus, it is clear that the dispute in said S.P.

Goel (supra) is totally different, and not connected with the dispute

which is raised in the present Writ Petition.

44. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in

20
Lloyd Electric & Engg. Ltd. v. State of H.P. by Mr. Jain, learned

Counsel for the Petitioner. In the said decision, the question was

whether the concessional rate of Central Sales Tax offered as per the
20 (2016) 1 SCC 560

48
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

Industrial Policy of the State of Himachal Pradesh can be violated, and

whether the State Government can levy the tax against its own policy.

Thus, even the said decision, and observations in Paragraph Nos.9 and

10 on which Mr. Jain, learned Counsel has relied, are not applicable to

the present case.

45. Reliance on the decision of Bayview Lounge Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is

also not applicable to the present case. The said Writ Petition has been

only admitted and the implementation of the Order dated 8th January

2021 impugned in the said Writ Petition, has been stayed. Thus, nothing

has been decided in the said decision. In any case, perusal of the said

order clearly shows that the entire dispute is arising out of the

provisions of the Stamp Act and the provisions of the Registration Act

are not at all involved. Accordingly, reliance of the Petitioner on said ad-

interim/interim order is also not relevant.

46. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel has also relied on the decision of the

Division Bench of this Court in Madhu Kachharam Achhra v. Join Sub

21
Registrar of Assurance Ulhasnagar . However, in the said decision, the

document is already registered and the original copy of the said Sale

Deed is not traceable in the Office of the Joint Sub-Registrar of

Assurances, Ulhasnagar and therefore prayer sought in the Writ Petition

is to trace original Sale Deed dated 30th September 1983, registered

under Serial No.2874/1983 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar of

21 Writ Petition No.1068 of 2021 (Decided on 17/11/2021)

49
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

Assurances, Ulhasnagar. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the

Division Bench issued the following directions :-

“10. The three Petitioners agree and undertake that all

three will be present before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances
and will sign the necessary document or deed of confirmation
submitted by the Petitioners and that they will do so within a
period of two weeks from today. The Sub-Registrar is ordered
and directed to immediately register on presentation the deed
of confirmation without insisting on payment of any
additional stamp duty. This is not a fresh transaction but is
only a confirmation of a previously stamped and registered
document.”
(Emphasis added)

Thus, it is clear that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case

direction was issued as the document in question was already stampped

and registered.

47. It is required to be noted that the High Court cannot in its Writ

Jurisdiction extend the statutory period under the Registration Act for

presentation of a document for registration. However, the only limited

exception is where the delay in presenting the document was not

attributable to the Petitioner on account of some impossibility or by

virtue of an act of Authority. The said decisions are premised under the

principle that no man can be compelled to perform an impossible act or

be punished for the acts of a Authority. The said principle is squarely

applicable to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of

Madhu Kachharam Achhra (supra) on which Petitioner has relied. In

50
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

that case, the document is not only a registered document but also

stamped document. However, original document is not to be found in

the record and therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the

directions have been given. The said decision will have no application to

the present case.

Conclusions:

48. In view of above discussion following conclusions are recorded:-

(i) The Registration Act makes provisions in public interest for

record of documents and mainly documents of title. The same has

been enacted to check forgery, prevent fraud, to protect the public

and to provide good evidence of the genuineness of written

instruments.

(ii) The Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure

revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments. The

stringent provisions of the Act are conceived in the interest of the

revenue.

(iii) The purpose of the Amnesty Scheme issued by exercising

power under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act is in

consonance with the object of the Stamp Act i.e. to secure revenue

for the State.

(iv) The object of the Registration Act is not for securing

revenue but maintaining a record of documents of title in public

51
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

interest. The stringent timelines prescribed under the Registration

Act for presentation of document have been made to prevent fraud

and to protect the public.

(v) The non stamping of the instrument with proper stamp

duty, in terms of the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act,

entailed the following consequences:-

(a) As per Section 33 of the Stamp Act, if the agreement

which is produced before the Authority contemplated under

Section 33 and is not duly stamped, the Authority is

empowered to impound the same. In fact, even after

registration of the instrument also power is given under

Section 33-A of the Stamp Act to impound the instrument if

it is not duly stamped.

(b) Section 34 of the Stamp Act provides that instruments

not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence.

(c) Section 46 of the Stamp Act provides that all duties,

penalties and other sums required to be paid under this Act,

may be recovered by the Collector by distress and sale of

the movable property of the person from whom the same

are due as an arrear of land revenue. Execution of any

instrument with the intention to evade the duty is an

offence under Section 59.

52
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

(vi) Once under the Amnesty Scheme proper stamp duty as

determined is paid within the time limit as granted by the order

passed under the Amnesty Scheme, for the purpose of the Stamp

Act the said document/instrument will be treated as on which

proper stamp duty has been paid and for the purpose of Sections

33, 34, 40, 46 and 59, the same will be considered as the document

on which the proper stamp duty has been paid. The same has no

effect on the stringent time line provided under the Registration Act

for presentation of the documents for registration.

(vii) The High Court cannot in its Writ Jurisdiction extend the

statutory period under the Registration Act for presentation of a

document for registration. However, the only limited exception is

where the delay in presenting the document was not attributable to

the Petitioner and the same is on account of some impossibility or

by virtue of an act of Authority. The said decisions are premised

under the principle that no man can be compelled to perform an

impossible act or be punished for the acts of a Authority.

(viii) The object of the Registration Act is not for securing

revenue but maintaining a record of documents of title in public

interest. Thus, allowing registration of the subject document dated

4th October 1987 which has been presented for the first time for

registration on 31st January, 2024 i.e. after about 37 years, cannot

53
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::
 01-WP(L)-12995-2024.doc

be allowed in view of specific timelines provided in Section 23 read

with Section 25 of the Registration Act. It is very clear that the said

strict timelines are provided to prevent fraud and protect the public

as the purpose of the Registration Act is to a maintain record of

documents of title in public interest. The payment of stamp duty

under the Amnesty Scheme will have no effect of altering the strict

timelines provided under the Registration Act for presentation of

documents.

49. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of relief to the

Petitioner. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to

costs.

50. This order was dictated in Open Court on earlier dates and

completed today.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

54
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2025 21:03:59 :::