PANKAJ Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bone of contention between the parties in the present case is whether the refund of the amount paid for stamp paper, which was purchased for an abortive sale deed, is to be given to the petitioner.

(2.) The Collector Stamps, by his judgment dtd. 31/7/2013, held that the case was covered by Sec. 49(d) (5) read with Sec. 50(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as a result of which, any claim for such refund, based on the aforesaid provision, would have to be made within two months. There is no dispute that the claim was, in fact, made 12 days late. This being so, as the claim for refund was time barred, refund was refused by this Order. The Board of Revenue, by Order dtd. 5/3/2014, dismissed the revision that was filed by the petitioner. However, in a writ petition filed by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge of the High Court, by his judgment dtd. 19/8/2016, held that the present case would fall under Sec. 50(3), as a result of which, six months' time was granted and the refund application being made within six months was, therefore, allowed. In an appeal filed by the State, the Division Bench of the High Court, has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and reiterated the view of the Authorities below.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is correct. However, that is not the end of the matter. In 'M/s. Shiv Shankar Dal Mills and Others v. State of Haryana and Others' [1980 (2) SCC 437], Krishna Iyer, J., had held that in cases like the present, the dharma of the situation requires that the State does not put forward a plea of limitation in order to defeat just claims of citizens.