KALPATARU GARDENS LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT.

                                                                          JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc

Salunke
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 1962 OF 2026

          Kalpataru Gardens Limited & Anr.                }      Petitioners
               Versus
          The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                 }      Respondents


          Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paritosh
          Jaiswal, Ms. Aditi Nagayach and Mr. Makarand Savant
          i/b. Perfect Law Solutions, Advocates for the Petitioners.

          Mr. Prashant Kamble, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

                       CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                               ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

                     RESERVED ON: 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
                   PRONOUNCED ON: 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026

          JUDGMENT: [Per: Chief Justice]


          1.    Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

          2.    Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
          learned Counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.

          3.    By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
          the Petitioners, inter alia, pray for the following substantive reliefs: -

               “(A) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a
                    Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
                    or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for
                    the records, papers and proceedings pertaining to the said
                    impugned Order dated 3rd April 2025 passed by Respondent No. 3
                    and after examining the legality and validity thereof, be pleased to
                    quash and set aside the said impugned Order No. 1 dated 3 rd April
                    2025 (to the extent, it records that the said Indenture is not eligible
                    for registration);


                                                   1
                                                                 JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc




     (B)   That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a
           Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
           or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for
           the records, papers and proceedings pertaining to the said
           impugned Order no. 2 dated 24 th April 2025 passed by Respondent
           No. 4 and after examining the legality and validity thereof, be
           pleased to quash and set aside the said impugned Order dated 24 th
           April 2025;
     (C)   That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or
           a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
           order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
           directing the Respondents to register the said Indenture of Lease
           dated 14th July 2017 without charging any penalty for the same.”


4.    The case of the Petitioners is that the Petitioner No. 1 entered
into an Indenture of Lease dated 14 th July 2017 with Petitioner
No.2. Under the said Indenture of Lease, the Petitioner No.1, in
favor of Petitioner No. 2, demised a parcel of non-agricultural land
admeasuring 1050 square meters situated at Survey No. 201 (Part),
CTS No. 283/A(Part) of Village Bhandup, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai
Suburban District for a period of 999 years commencing from 14 th
July 2017. This being subject to the terms and conditions
stipulated in the Indenture of Lease at the annual lease rent of
Rs.1/- and for a one-time premium of Rs. 5 crores paid by
Petitioner No. 2 to the Petitioner No. 1, on or before execution of the
said Indenture of Lease.


5.    Pursuant to the Application dated 24 th July 2017, for
adjudication of stamp duty on the said Indenture of Lease, the
Petitioner No. 1 submitted the same to Respondent No. 3 - Collector
of Stamps on 9th August 2017 for adjudication.

6.    In regard to the above, on 15th December 2017, Respondent
No. 3 – Collector of Stamps passed an order upon such Application
made by the Petitioner No. 1, calling upon it to pay the stamp duty
                                          2
                                                    JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


of Rs. 60,59,350/-.

7.    The record indicates that aggrieved with the method of
valuation adopted by the Respondent No. 3 - Collector of Stamps,
the Petitioner No. 1 preferred an Appeal on 14 th February 2018
before the Additional Controller of Stamps, Mumbai under Section
32B of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (“Stamp Act” for short).

8.    Upon hearing the parties in the Appeal, the Additional
Controller of Stamps, Mumbai passed an order on 16 th August
2018. By the said Order, the Appeal of the Petitioner No. 1 was
allowed, calling upon the Respondent No. 3 - Collector of Stamps, to
reassess the matter, after considering the issues raised by the
Petitioner No. 1.

9.    Consequent to the above, the office of Respondent No. 3 -
Collector of Stamps held hearing on 5 th October 2018 and Petitioner
No. 1 was directed to file its written submissions in the matter. Vide
an Interim Order dated 7th December 2018, the Respondent No. 3 -
Collector of Stamps determined the market value of the demised
land at Rs. 8,65,62,000/- and under Article 36(iv) of the Stamp Act
adjudicated the stamp duty at Rs. 43,28,100/-.

10.   Upon receipt of the Interim Order on 21 st December 2018,
Petitioner No.1 filed a formal objection by way of letter dated 2 nd
January 2019 stating that the Interim Order does not set out and
explain the method of computation/determination of the market
value stated therein. Vide the said letter, Petitioner No. 1 also
prayed for providing the methodology of computation/determination
of the market value. Petitioner No. 1 did not receive any
reply/response from Respondent No. 3 – Collector of Stamps to the

                                  3
                                                      JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


its letter dated 2nd January 2019.


11.   The Petition proceeds on the basis that due to COVID-19
Pandemic, the proceedings could not be finalized. Later on,
Petitioner No. 1, once again moved an Application on 31 st January
2024 under the Maharashtra Stamp Duty Amnesty Scheme 2023
for getting the benefit provided thereunder regarding reduction in
stamp duty. Pursuant to the said Application, Respondent No. 3 -
Collector of Stamps passed another Interim Order dated 21 st March
2024, vide which, an amount of Rs. 32,46,075/- was adjudicated as
stamp duty and further a penalty of Rs. 6,66,527 was imposed on
the Petitioner No. 1. Even in the said proceedings, Petitioner No. 1
raised an objection vide letter dated 27th March 2024, highlighting
certain    discrepancies   and   oversight   in   processing    the    said
Application.


12.   Resultantly, Respondent No. 3 - Collector of Stamps passed a
revised Interim Order on 24 th March 2025 adjudicating the stamp
duty on the said Indenture of Lease at Rs. 22,25,888/-. On 27 th
March 2025, since the Petitioner No. 1 made payment of the said
adjudicated stamp duty of Rs. 22,25,888/-, on 1 st April 2025, the
Respondent No. 3 - Collector of Stamps made an endorsement on
the said Indenture of Lease that the stamp duty of Rs.22,25,888/-
has been already paid and the said Indenture of Lease is duly
stamped.


13.   On the basis of the aforesaid, on 3rd April 2025, Respondent
No. 3 - Collector of Stamps passed a Final Order thereby confirming
its Interim Order dated 24 th March 2025. Such final order
(Impugned Order No. 1) also records that since the document was

                                     4
                                                          JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


executed   on     14th    July    2017,   as      per   the    Circular     No.
Ka.4/P.No.617/2011/3008 dated 22nd December 2011 issued by
the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, the
said document is not eligible for registration.


14.   Thereafter, the Petitioner No. 1, sent a letter dated 16 th April
2025 to the Respondent No. 4 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Class-2. The
communication briefly stated the reasons causing delay in lodging
the said Indenture of Lease, for registration and requested to accept
the said Indenture of Lease for registration.


15.   The request of the Petitioner No. 1 was rejected vide order
dated 24th April 2025 (Impugned Order No. 2) on the ground that
the said Indenture of Lease was not submitted for registration
within the time limit prescribed under Sections 23 and 24 of the
Registration    Act,     1908    (“Registration    Act”   in    short).    The
Respondent No. 4 - Joint Sub-Registrar, raised an objection under
Section 25 of the Registration Act stating that the power to condone
the delay is only up to 4 months beyond the initial period and even
such period had lapsed.

16.   Mr. Surel Shah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioners, in this backdrop, vehemently submitted
that the impugned action on the part of the Respondents is
arbitrary and unreasonable. This in as much as the delay in not
presenting the document for registration within the prescribed limit
of 4 months as prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act
was beyond the control of the Petitioners. It is submitted that the
said Indenture of Lease was lodged for adjudication in the year
2017, which was finally adjudicated on 3rd April 2025.

                                      5
                                                       JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


17.    Mr. Shah would urge that the Petitioners had made all
attempts      by     approaching   the   Authorities    seeking      earlier
adjudication and determination of the stamp duty payable on the
said Indenture of Lease. The record clearly reflects that the
Petitioner No. 1 preferred an Appeal against such rejection and then
subsequently, the matter was finally settled on 3 rd April 2025. As
such, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no delay
whatsoever on the part of the Petitioners.

18.    Mr. Shah submitted that the inaction and refusal on the part
of the Respondents in not accepting the said Indenture of Lease, for
registration is contrary to law. He relied upon a Division Bench
Judgment of this Court in the case of Nestor Builders &
Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1 and
submitted that refusal to register the Indenture of Lease is patently
bad in law. He further relied upon an Order passed by a Division
Bench of this Court on 19th July 2018 in the case of Kanani
Developers LLP & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2.
He submitted that in the instant case, the facts are admitted to the
extent the process of adjudication was commenced on 9 th August
2017 and the same was completed by Respondent No. 3 – Collector
of Stamps on 3rd April 2025 and admittedly, the Application for
adjudication was pending. Therefore, the Petitioners could not
lodge/present the said Indenture of Lease for registration. The
period taken by Respondent No. 3 – Collector of Stamps for
adjudication cannot be held against the Petitioners while computing
the period of limitation. In case no relief is granted in favour of the
Petitioners, they would suffer irreparable prejudice.


1 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3480
2 Writ Petition No. 1066 of 2018
                                    6
                                                   JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


19.   On the contrary, Mr. Prashant Kamble, learned AGP for the
Respondents, vehemently opposed the Petition and reiterated the
objection so taken in the Affidavit-in-Reply. He relied upon the
relevant provisions of the Registration Act and submitted that in
view of the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Registration
Act, it is the paramount responsibility of the parties to place the
instrument for registration well within 4 months from the date of its
execution. He submitted that the Petitioners could not submit the
Indenture of Lease dated 14th July 2017 executed between them for
registration within the stipulated time period. He submitted that
the Respondent No. 3 - Collector of Stamps has already passed an
order way back on 15th December 2017 thereby fixing the stamp
duty on the said Indenture of Lease at Rs. 60,59,350/-. Therefore,
at this stage, as the Respondent No 3 had already taken its decision
on 15th December 2017, the computation of the period of limitation
is to be reckoned from 15th December 2017.


20.   For such reasons, Mr. Kamble would urge that there is no
infirmity and illegality which warrant interference in the Impugned
Orders. The Impugned Orders are, therefore, valid and no case is
made out by the Petitioners and the Writ Petition deserved to be
dismissed.


21.   We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and with
their assistance perused the record. The facts as noted above
clearly indicate that the dispute in question revolves around the
refusal of the Respondent Authorities to register the said Indenture
of Lease dated 14th July 2017, primarily on the ground of delay as
the same was not presented for registration by the Petitioner No. 1
in the stipulated 4 month period.
                                    7
                                                   JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


22.   We find that Petitioner No. 1 had submitted the said Indenture
of Lease for adjudication before Respondent No. 3 – Collector of
Stamps on 9th August 2017. The Respondent No. 3 thereafter,
passed Interim Orders including the one dated 21 st December 2018,
pursuant to which, the Petitioner No. 1 also wrote to the said
Respondent vide letter dated 2nd January 2019, in regard to
providing the methodology/computation of the market value for
stamp duty purposes. It appears that the said letter was not
responded to by the Respondent No. 3. However, due to the onset
and continuation of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the proceedings of
adjudication of stamp duty on the said Indenture of Lease, could
not be finalized. Undisputedly, the Petitioner No. 1 again moved an
Application on 31st January 2024 under the Maharashtra Stamp
Duty Amnesty Scheme 2023 seeking benefits available thereunder.

23.   As the Application of the Petitioner No. 1 for adjudication of
stamp duty remained undecided, he continued to pursue the same
with the Respondent Authorities. The factual matrix clearly
indicates that the Respondent No. 3 passed an Interim Order dated
21st March 2024, under which, an amount of Rs. 32,46,075/- was
adjudicated as stamp duty and further a penalty of Rs. 6,66,527
was imposed on the Petitioner No. 1 However, considering the
objection raised by Petitioner No. 1, the Collector of Stamps -
Respondent No.3 passed a revised Interim Order on 24 th March
2025 (Exhibit ‘J’) adjudicating the stamp duty on the subject
Indenture at Rs.22,25,888/-. Consequently, on 27 th March 2025,
since Petitioner No. 1 made payment of the stamp duty of
Rs.22,25,888/-, on 1st April 2025, against which, Respondent No. 3
made an endorsement evidencing payment receipt.

24.   We find that thereafter on such basis, on 3 rd April 2025,
                                 8
                                                     JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


Respondent No. 3 passed its Final Order thereby confirming its
Interim Order dated 24th March 2025, holding that the said
Indenture of Lease is not eligible for registration, more particularly,
on account of the Circular dated 22 nd December 2011 (supra).
Thereafter, the request of the Petitioner No 1 to accept the said
Indenture of Lease for registration was rejected by the Respondent
No. 4 vide Order dated 24 th April 2025 (Impugned Order No. 2),
primarily on the ground that the said Indenture of Lease was not
submitted for registration within the time limit prescribed under
Sections 23 and 24 of the Registration Act, as noted in the factual
matrix above.

25.   To examine the issue that confronts us, it would be
appropriate to examine the relevant provisions namely Section 23,
23A, 25 and 26 of the Registration Act which read thus:-

           “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:

           PROVIDED that a copy of a decree or order may be
           presented within four months from the date on which
           the decree or order was made or, where it is
           appealable, within four months from the day on which
           it becomes final.

           23A. Re-registration of certain documents :
           Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
           this Act, if in any case a document requiring
           registration has been accepted for 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
                                   9
                                            JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


invalid, present such document or cause the same to
be presented, in accordance with the provisions of
Part VI for re-registration in the office of the Registrar
of the district in which the document was originally
registered; and upon the Registrar being satisfied that
the document was so accepted for registration from a
person not duly empowered to present the same, he
shall proceed to the re-registration of the document as
if it has not been previously registered, and as if such
presentation for re-registration was a presentation for
registration made within the time allowed therefor
under Part IV, and all the provisions of this Act, as to
registration of documents, shall apply to such
reregistration; and such document, if duly re-
registered in accordance with the provisions of this
section, shall be deemed to have been duly registered
for all purposes from the date of its original
registration:

PROVIDED that, within three months from the twelfth
day of September, 1917, any person claiming under a
document to which this section applies may present
the same or cause the same to be presented for
reregistration in accordance with this section,
whatever may have been the time when he first
became aware that the registration of the document
was invalid.]

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.
26. Documents executed out of (India) – When a
document purporting to have been executed by all or
                        10
                                                       JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


             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 supplied)


       A cumulative reading of the aforesaid provisions and more
      particularly Section 25 of the Registration Act, evidently
      postulates the intention of the legislature. This being that if a
      certain document in a given situation cannot be presented for
      registration within the period of four months prescribed under
      Section 23 of the Registration Act, it can still be accepted for
      registration,   beyond   the   prescribed   period   as   stipulated
      therein. Accordingly, the registration cannot be refused if the
      delay on the part of the party presenting the document for
      registration, beyond the prescribed period, is bonafide, not
      intentional/deliberate and was on account of a genuine
      reason/cause, beyond the control of such party.


26.    In our view, a substantive legal right accrued to the
Petitioners to have the document registered under the provisions of
the Registration Act cannot stand defeated, merely on account of
some delay, which is definitely not attributable to the party
presenting the document for registration, that too for reasons
beyond its control. The legal position in this regard has been
succinctly enunciated in the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case Raj Kumar Dey and Others Vs. Tarapada Dey and Others 3.
3 AIR 1987 SC 2195
                                     11
                                                    JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


This decision concerned registration of an Award dated 28 th
November 1977. In the said proceedings adopted by the parties
under the Arbitration Act 1940, the Award had remained in the
custody of the Court. An Application was made by the Arbitrators to
return the Award, so as to enable them to present the same before
the Sub Registrar for registration. An order came to be passed in
January, 1980 on the said Application whereby the Sub-Judge
ordered return of the Award to the Arbitrators to enable them to
present it for registration. In further proceedings on 24 th November
1983, the Arbitrators got back the Award from the Court and on the
next day i.e. on 25th November 1983, the Arbitrators presented the
Award before the Sub-Registrar who registered the Award on 25 th
November 1983. By order dated 19 th June 1986, the High Court
quashed such registration under Article 227 of the Constitution
holding that the Award has been presented for registration beyond
time. In considering the challenge to this order of the High Court,
the Supreme Court while holding that the delay from the period 20 th
November 1977 to 25th November 1983 (about 6 years) was rightly
excluded by the Sub-Registrar. In Paragraphs 6 and 7 the Supreme
Court has observed thus:-

           “6. We have to bear in mind two maxims of equity
           which are well settled, namely, "ACTUS CURIAE
           NEMINEM GRAVABIT"- An act of the Court shall
           prejudice no man. In Broom's Legal Maxims. 10th
           edition, 1939 at page 73 this maxim is explained that
           this maxim was founded upon justice and good
           sense; and afforded a safe and certain guide for the
           administration of the law. The above maxim should,
           however, be applied with caution. The other maxim is
           "LEX NON COGIT AD lMPOSSIBILIA" (Broom's Legal
           Maxims-P. 162)- The law does not compel a man to
           do that which he cannot possibly perform. The law
           itself and the administration of it, said Sir W. Scott,
           with reference to an alleged infraction of the revenue
                                  12
                                           JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


laws, must yield to that to which everything must
bend, to necessity; the law, in its most positive and
peremptory injunctions, is understood to disclaim, as
it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of
compelling impossibilities, and the administration of
laws must adopt that general exception in the
consideration of all particular cases.

7.     In this case indisputably during the period from
26th of July, 1978 to 20th December, 1982 there was
subsisting injunction preventing the arbitrators from
taking any steps. Furthermore, as noted before the
award was in the custody of the court, that is to say,
28th of January, 1978 till the return of the award to
the arbitrators on 24th of 124 November, 1983, the
arbitrators or the parties could not have presented the
award for its registration during that time. The award
as we have noted before was made on 28th of
November, 1977 and before the expiry of the four
months from 28th November, 1977, the award was
filed in the court pursuant to the order of the court. It
was argued that the order made by the court
directing the arbitrators to keep the award in the
custody of the court was wrong and without
jurisdiction, but no arbitrator could be compelled to
disobey the order of the court and if in compliance or
obedience with court of doubtful jurisdiction, he could
not take back the award from the custody of the court
to take any further steps for its registration then it
cannot be said that he has failed to get the award
registered as the law required. The aforesaid two
legal maxims-the law does not compel a man to do
that which he cannot possibly perform and an act of
the Court shall prejudice no man would, apply with
full vigour in the facts of this case and if that is the
position then the award as we have noted before was
presented before the Sub-Registrar, Arambagh on
25th November, 1983 the very next one day of getting
possession of the award from the court. The Sub-
Registrar pursuant to the order of the High Court on
24th of June,1985 found that the award was
presented within time as the period during which the
judicial proceedings were pending that is to say, from
28th of January, 1978 to 24th of November, 1983
                       13
                                                      JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


             should be excluded in view of the principle laid down
             in section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High
             Court, therefore, in our opinion, was wrong in holding
             that the only period which should be excluded was
             from 26th July, 1978 till 20th December, 1982. We
             are unable to accept this position. 26th July, 1978
             was the date of the order of the learned Munsif
             directing maintenance of status quo and 20th of
             December, 1982 was the date when the interim
             injunction was vacated, but still the award was in the
             custody of the court and there is ample evidence as it
             would appear from the narration of events
             hereinbefore made that the arbitrators had tried to
             obtain the custody of the award which the court
             declined to give to them. … … … ”
                                              (emphasis supplied)

27.    Mr. Shah has relied on the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Nestor Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v.
State of Maharashtra & Ors4. We find that the above decision of
the Supreme Court has been gainfully referred to and relied upon
by this Court, in the backdrop of similar factual matrix, as in the
present case, which would therefore be applicable in the given
factual complexion.


28.    In the facts of the present case, the delay in presenting the
document for registration was purely attributable to Respondent No.
3, in passing a final adjudication order only on 3 rd April 2025,
under Section 31 of the Stamps Act. This delay on the part of the
Respondent No. 3 cannot be held as detrimental to the Petitioners
who, without any fault attributable to them, have been diligently
pursuing the proceedings before the Respondent No. 3, as observed
above.



4   2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3480
                                   14
                                                   JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


29.   We find that it is undisputed that the Petitioner No. 1 is
entitled to the benefit under the prevalent Amnesty Scheme of the
State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, the Petitioner No 1 in fact, paid
the stamp duty adjudicated at Rs.22,25,888/- which was duly
endorsed by the Respondent No. 3 on 1 st April 2025, after which the
final order dated 3rd April 2025 came to be passed by the said
Respondent. In such facts and circumstances the Respondent No. 4
ought to have excluded the period of limitation, until passing of the
final order on 3rd April 2025 (supra) for the purposes of registering
the said Indenture of Lease dated 14 th July 2017. The period from
9th August 2017 up to 3rd April 2025, which was spent in the
adjudication process until the final order was passed on 3 rd April
2025, cannot be held against the Petitioner No 1, so as to deprive
him of having the Indenture of Lease dated 14 th July 2017,
registered in the manner as the law would mandate. Such recourse
of excluding the above period for the purposes of limitation would
in our view, be in consonance not only with the provisions of the
Registration Act enumerated (supra) but also in conformity with the
decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Dey & Ors. (supra).


30.   We find that the decision taken by the Respondents to not
exclude the substantial delay caused at the behest of Respondent
No. 3 - Collector of Stamps in adjudication of the said Indenture of
Lease, leading to refusal of registration of the said document would
entail serious consequences qua the Petitioner No. 1. This certainly
can never be the intention of the legislature. Mere delay cannot
defeat substantive justice. Accepting the case of the Respondents
would tantamount to straying away therefrom, an approach we
cannot countenance, in the given factual complexion.


                                 15
                                                                         JUDG-OSWP-1962-2026.doc


                      31.   Having examined the relevant provisions of the Registration
                      Act and applying the above principles of law as laid down by the
                      Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that the time
                      taken by Respondent No. 3 - Collector of Stamps for adjudication is
                      required to be excluded by the Respondents in accepting the said
                      Indenture of Lease dated 14th July 2017, for registration. The said
                      document ought to have been registered, in accordance with law.

                      32.   For all the above reasons, the Writ Petition stands Allowed in
                      terms of prayer clauses (A) to (C). Rule is made Absolute in the
                      aforesaid terms.

                      33.   All concerned, to act on an authenticated copy of this
                      Judgment and Order.

JAYANT
VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
Digitally signed by
JAYANT VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
Date: 2026.09.29
                        [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                       [CHIEF JUSTICE]
16:25:15 +0530




                                                       16