Bombay High Court Refers Section 53A Stamp Act Time Limit Issue To Larger Bench
Copy Link
Share
Save
In a crucial development for property transactions and revenue recovery, the Bombay High Court has referred the legal question regarding the time limit for concluding revision proceedings under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act to a larger Bench.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Amit Borkar expressed disagreement with earlier coordinate bench decisions which held that the entire revision exercise from initiation to the final recovery order must strictly conclude within six years under Section 53A(1).
Key Takeaways
Reference to Larger Bench: The core legal issue of whether the 6-year limitation under Section 53A(1) applies only to initiation or covers the final recovery order stands referred to the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench.
Impact of 2026 Proviso: The Court highlighted that the recent statutory insertion of a proviso in Section 53A(1) in 2026 allows proceedings initiated within six years to continue until a final order is passed.
Sub-Judice Status in SC: The High Court noted that the precedent set in Sony Mony Electronics Limited v. State of Maharashtra through Collector, which enforced an absolute 6-year cap, is currently under challenge and stayed before the Supreme Court.
Protection of Revenue vs Certainty: The referral seeks to strike a balanced interpretation between providing finality to property purchasers and preserving the State’s power to recover deficit stamp duty.
Court Observations and Directions
Evaluating the statutory text, the High Court observed that Section 53A(1) lists sequential acts: calling for the instrument, providing a hearing, examining the document, and ordering recovery. Justice Borkar noted that the 6-year period is textually linked to requiring the party to produce the instrument, rather than explicitly barring a final order past six years.
Referring to earlier coordinate bench rulings in Sony Mony Electronics Limited v. State of Maharashtra through Collector, Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra, and Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra, the Court felt bound by judicial discipline to not take a contrary view directly but determined that the recent 2026 statutory amendment and Supreme Court proceedings warranted a fresh review by a larger Bench.
The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "On one possible reading the period of six years appears to be connected with the exercise of power of requiring the concerned party to produce the instrument... The question, therefore, is whether the words 'within a period of six years' apply only to the first act of calling for the instrument, or whether those words travel further and apply to the whole process, so that every further step, including passing of the final order, has to be completed within six years."
The Court has following directions:
"The Registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for such further orders as may be considered necessary, including for constitution of a larger Bench to decide the above question.
The writ petition shall remain pending until the reference made to the larger Bench is finally decided. The writ petition shall thereafter be taken up for final disposal and shall be decided in accordance with the law laid down by the larger Bench on the question referred."
Ratio
Whether, on a true interpretation of Section 53A(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act prior to the 2026 proviso, the prescribed six-year period operates solely as a limitation for initiating revision proceedings by requiring production of the instrument, or whether it imposes a strict outer time limit within which the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority must pass the final order for recovery of deficit stamp duty.
Background
The petitioners, M/s. Sahyog Homes Ltd. and its director, challenged an order dated March 5, 2015, passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune, directing them to pay Rs. 2,31,62,800/- towards deficit stamp duty.
The original Deed of Conveyance was executed on May 21, 2004, and adjudicated under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act with stamp duty of Rs. 13,00,000/- paid after certification under Section 32(1). Later, following allegations of gross undervaluation, a notice under Section 53A was issued on June 6, 2005. However, the first order demanding deficit duty was issued only in March 2013, almost eight years after the initial hearing. Subsequent litigation led to a fresh order in 2015, which was challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners argued that pursuant to Sony Mony Electronics Limited v. State of Maharashtra through Collector, Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra, and Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra, revisional proceedings under Section 53A must be completed within six years from the date of the Collector's certificate. The State argued that the issue was sub judice as the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of Sony Mony Electronics Limited v. State of Maharashtra through Collector. Concurring that a significant question of law arose, the High Court referred the matter to a larger Bench and directed the writ petition to remain pending in the interim.
Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 6437 OF 2015
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:35280
Case Title: M/s. Sahyog Homes Ltd. & Anr. V/s. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Durgaprasad Sabnis a/w Rajani Yadav i/b LEX FIRMUS
For the Respondent(s): Smt. A. A. Nadkarni, AGP
Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 4696
Similar Articles
Breaking News
