SMT GOPALRAO S/O TUKARAM KUKDOLKAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8470
WP No. 103500 of 2026

HC-KAR
R



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO. 103500 OF 2026 (GM-ST/RN)

BETWEEN:

SRI GOPALRAO S/O. TUKARAM KUKDOLKAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. CTS NO. 95, FLAT 001, KRISH NEST,
MANGALAWAR PETH, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI D. RAVIKUMAR GOKAKAKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001.











3. THE DISTRICT-REGISTRAR
STAMPS AND REGISTRATION,
TQ. & DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.

4. THE SUB-REGISTRAR
STAMPS AND REGISTRATION,
TQ. & DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2019 BEARING NO. RFD:8/2019-20
PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE A, AND THE
ORDER DATED 16.10.2023 BEARING NO. RFD/134/2021-22 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE B, AND THE ORDER DT.
15.3.2018 BEARING NO. PRA AABE: BJM:STP:AP-03:17-18 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,




Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8470
WP No. 103500 of 2026

HC-KAR


THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

The Captioned writ petition is directed against the
endorsement dated 21.08.2019 issued by respondent No.3
(Annexure-A), the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by
respondent No.3 (Annexure-B), and the order dated
15.03.2018 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-G), whereby
the petitioner’s request for refund of stamp duty and
₹
registration charges aggregating to 5,88,112/-, paid in
anticipation of registration of a sale deed, has been rejected.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he intended to
purchase residential Site No.1556/1A and, in furtherance of the
proposed transaction, presented the sale deed for registration
after remitting the requisite stamp duty and registration
₹
charges. The petitioner paid a sum of 2,49,900/- towards
₹
stamp duty through Demand Draft No.728640, 24,500/-
towards registration charges through Demand Draft No.728638
drawn on the State Bank of India, besides other incidental
₹
charges amounting to 49,000/-. However, during the course of

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8470
WP No. 103500 of 2026

HC-KAR


registration, the registering authority entertained a doubt
regarding the market value of the property and referred the
document for determination of market value. Consequent upon
the valuation determined by the Regional Commissioner,
Belagavi, the petitioner found the transaction commercially
unviable and, therefore, decided not to proceed with the
purchase. The petitioner accordingly submitted a representation
seeking refund of the stamp duty and registration charges
already remitted. The said request came to be rejected by
respondent No.3 solely on the ground that the application for
refund had been made beyond one year from the date of
presentation of the document.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, this
Court finds that the controversy essentially revolves around the
scope and ambit of Section 52A of the Karnataka Stamp Act,
1957 (for short, ‘the Act’). A plain reading of Section 52A of the
Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for seeking relief
by way of refund. The records further disclose that though the
petitioner had presented the sale deed for registration after

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8470
WP No. 103500 of 2026

HC-KAR


remitting the requisite stamp duty and registration charges, the
transaction ultimately did not culminate in registration, as the
petitioner chose to withdraw from the proposed sale in view of
the enhanced market valuation determined by the competent
authority. It is thereafter that the petitioner sought refund by
submitting a detailed representation.

4. The learned Additional Government Advocate, while
defending the impugned orders, would contend that once the
document was presented for registration and the registering
authority found the valuation to be inadequate, the petitioner
cannot seek refund of the stamp duty by invoking Section 52A
of the Act. It is further contended that the provisions of Section
45A of the Act disentitle the petitioner from claiming such
refund.

5. This Court is unable to accept the said contention.
Admittedly, the proposed transaction did not culminate in
registration of the document. Where a prospective purchaser
deposits stamp duty and registration charges in anticipation of
completion of a sale transaction, but the transaction itself is
abandoned before registration, such person cannot be deprived

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8470
WP No. 103500 of 2026

HC-KAR


of the remedy available under Section 52A of the Act. The
reasons assigned by respondent No.3 in the endorsement at
Annexure-A and the order at Annexure-B, as also by the
revisional authority in the order at Annexure-G, do not conform
to the statutory scheme envisaged under Section 52A of the
Act. The authorities have proceeded on considerations which
are wholly dehors the procedure contemplated under the said
provision.

6. A careful examination of the impugned orders
further reveals that while rejecting the petitioner’s claim, the
authorities have proceeded on the premise that the application
for refund was submitted beyond one year from the date of
presentation of the document. Significantly, none of the
impugned orders refer to any statutory provision, rule, circular
or Government Order prescribing such period of limitation. On
the contrary, the authorities have purported to invoke Section
52A of the Act, which, ex facie , does not prescribe any
limitation for entertaining a claim for refund in appropriate
cases.

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8470
WP No. 103500 of 2026

HC-KAR



7. The legality of the impugned orders has, therefore,
to be examined in the light of the statutory provisions
governing the field. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is
necessary to advert to Section 52A of the Act, which reads as
follows:
“Section 52A. Power of State Government to grant
relief.- Notwithstanding anything in the preceding sections
of this Chapter, the State Government, after consultation
with the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, if satisfied
that it is just and equitable to grant relief in any case or
class of cases,—
(i) other than those to which any of the said sections is
applicable; [XXX]
(ii) [XXX]
may by order direct the grant of such relief as may be
specified in the order and the Deputy Commissioner shall
dispose of the case or class of cases conformably to such
order.
[Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply
to cases where refunds are claimed for loss of stamps.]

8. It is equally necessary to extract Rule 193 of the
Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘the Rules’),
which reads thus:

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8470
WP No. 103500 of 2026

HC-KAR


“193. Withdrawal when allowed. — (i) A Registering
Officer may, before the order of registration is passed, at
the request in writing of the party presenting the
document for registration, allows him to withdraw the
same.
(ii) One-half of the registration fee and all the copying
fees in respect of a document presented for registration
which is subsequently withdrawn before the order of
registration has been passed and in respect of a document
of which registration is finally refused shall be refunded.”

9. A conjoint reading of Section 52A of the Act and
Rule 193 of the Rules unmistakably indicates that where a
document presented for registration is withdrawn before
completion of registration, the statutory scheme itself
contemplates refund of the registration fee to the extent
permissible under the Rules after deducting the copying
charges. The material on record also indicates that the
petitioner had sought refund within one year from the date of
purchase of the stamp papers and payment of registration
charges.

10. A conjoint and harmonious reading of Section 52A
of the Act, and Rule 193 of the Rules, unmistakably indicates
the legislative intent to provide equitable relief in cases where

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8470
WP No. 103500 of 2026

HC-KAR


the intended transaction does not culminate in a completed
registration. While Section 52A is an enabling provision
conferring wide discretionary power upon the State
Government to grant appropriate relief in cases not otherwise
covered by the preceding provisions of the Act whenever it is
satisfied that such relief is just and equitable, Rule 193
operationalizes that equitable principle by expressly recognizing
the right of the party presenting the document to withdraw the
same before an order of registration is passed. The underlying
object of Rule 193 is to acknowledge that mere presentation of
a document for registration does not bring about a completed
conveyance or an irreversible legal consequence. The process
of registration attains finality only upon the Registering Officer
passing an order of registration in accordance with law. Until
such stage, the presenter retains an unfettered right to
withdraw the document, and the Rule correspondingly
contemplates refund of one-half of the registration fee after
retaining the copying charges, thereby ensuring that the State
retains only such portion of the fee as corresponds to the
services actually rendered. Read in this statutory backdrop,
Section 52A and Rule 193 complement each other by advancing

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8470
WP No. 103500 of 2026

HC-KAR


the same equitable principle, namely, that where a proposed
transaction is abandoned before registration is completed, the
competent authority is obliged to consider the claim for refund
in accordance with the statutory scheme and cannot defeat
such claim by importing limitations or restrictions which the
legislature has consciously chosen not to incorporate.

11. The competent authority was, therefore, required to
examine the petitioner’s claim in the light of the provisions
contained in the Act and the Rules and also the Government
Order dated 21.02.2009 governing refund of stamp duty and
registration charges after permissible deductions. The rejection
of the petitioner’s claim solely on the ground of delay, without
reference to any statutory embargo, is legally unsustainable.
Consequently, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and
the matter requires reconsideration by the competent authority
in accordance with law.

12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8470
WP No. 103500 of 2026

HC-KAR


ORDER
allowed
(i) The writ petition is .

(ii) The endorsement dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure-A),
the order dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure-B) passed
by respondent No.3, and the order dated
15.03.2018 (Annexure-G) passed by respondent
No.2 are hereby quashed.

(iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.3 for fresh
consideration. Respondent No.3 shall reconsider the
petitioner’s claim in the light of the observations
made hereinabove, particularly having regard to
Section 52A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957,
Rules 193 and 194 of the Karnataka Registration
Rules, 1965, and the Government Order dated
21.02.2009, and thereafter pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law.

(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.


Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE


MBS
CT:GSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21