Seema Padalia And Another vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10692 of 2026
Seema Padalia and another
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 5 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul Sahai, Saumitra Anand
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh
AFR
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Instructions dated 16.04.2026 has been filed by learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel. The same is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri
Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no.6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
3. The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 25.09.2025,
by way of which the claim for refund of the stamp has been rejected,
being time barred while deciding the refund application of the
petitioners, in pursuance of the order dated 06.03.2025 passed in Writ-C
No.39180 of 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
on para-9 of the said judgment dated 06.03.2025, to submit that this
Court had given a positive finding in favour of the petitioners' claim, that
the benefit of refund of the stamp duty would be applicable in the case of
the petitioners. For ready reference para-9 is reproduced below:

2
WRIC No. - 10692 of 2026
"9. Upon perusal of the averments made, the documents annexed
and after going through the ratio of Supreme Court in Harshit
Harish Jain & Anr (supra), we are of the view that in the present
case the impugned order rejecting the refund of the petitioners is
passed on technical reasons only. From the facts, it is clear that the
agreement between the parties has taken place prior to the
amendment that has been carried in the stamp papers, and
accordingly, following the ratio of the Supreme Court Judgment, it
is crystal clear that the benefit of refund of the stamp duty would
be applicable in the present case. "
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the
unamended Rule 218 to submit that the proviso provides that the State
Government may irrespective of any time limit, disposed off the
application for relief of refund of the stamp, even in cases in which
period of 2 years has expired.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that Chapter-V of
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (herein after referred to as Act, 1899), provides
for "allowance for stamp in certain cases".
6. Section 49(d)(4) of the Act states as under:
“49. Allowance for spoiled stamps: Subject to such rules as may
be made by [the [State Government]] as to the evidence to be
required, or the enquiry to be made, the Collector may, on
application made within the period prescribed in section 50, and if
he is satisfied as to the facts, make allowance for impressed
stamps spoiled in the cases herein after mentioned, namely:
(d) the stamp used for an instrument executed by any party thereto
which—
(4) for want of the execution thereof by some material party, and
his inability or refusal to sign the same, is in fact incomplete and
insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended:""
7. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that Collector may, on
application made with the period prescribed in Section 50, and if he
satisfied to make such allowances, for impressed stamps spoiled, in the
cases mentioned under sub-clause (d); and in the facts of the present
case, the Section 49(d) read with Section 50(3). For ready reference
Section 50(3) is also reproduced below:

3
WRIC No. - 10692 of 2026
“50. Application for relief under section 49 when to be made—
The application for relief under Section 49 shall be made within
the following periods, that is to say -
(3) in the case of a stamped paper in which an instrument has been
executed by any of the parties thereto, within six months after the
date of the instrument, or, if it is not dated, within six months after
the execution thereof by the person by whom it was first or alone
executed: ""
8. It is not disputed between the parties that the stamp was purchased in
the year 2015 and the same was done so with an expectation that the
tripartite agreement which was contemplated after the deposit of the
requisite fee, shall be executed between the petitioners, Noida Authority
and the developer. But however, the respondent no.6 i.e. the Noida
Authority had not signed the said agreement, though was executed
between the petitioner and the developer, on the ground that the
developer had not paid the dues to the development authority and also
the completion certificate has not been issued.
9. From the aforesaid fact, it is evident that the act of purchase of the
stamp was with a legitimate expectation that the tripartite agreement
shall be executed but the same was not executed on account of the fact,
that there was inaction on the part of the developer, for which the Noida
Authority had refused to sign the agreement.
Issues :-
10. This Court has to examine the following issues:
i. Whether the conditions in relation to the time period prescribed under
Rule 218, prior to the amendment dated 20.12.2017, shall be applicable
or the amended Rule 218 will be applicable in the facts of the case.
ii. Once this Court vide its judgment dated 06.03.2025, had specifically
given the benefit of refund of the stamp duty, to the petitioner, whether it
was open for the authorities to deny the claim of the petitioner on the
ground of limitation having expired.
Discussion :
Since the issues are co-related, the same are being jointly death with:-

4
WRIC No. - 10692 of 2026
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated
16.05.2024, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that
vide notification dated 25.03.2021, [U.P. Stamp Amendment Rules,
2021], Rule 218 was amended; wherein, it was provided that from the
date of purchase of the stamp, after 8 years the stamp shall not be
returned; and the same was treated to be time barred.
12. He further submits that the order dated 16.05.2024 was challenged
before this Court in Writ-C No.39180 of 2024 and this Court vide its
order dated 06.03.2025 placing reliance on various decisions of this
Court, as well as, the Apex Court had set aside the impugned order dated
16.05.2024
13. This Court had held that the order rejecting the refund of the stamp,
being passed on technical reasons only, and the fact that the agreement
between the parties had taken place prior to the amendment, that has
been carried in the stamp papers, and accordingly, the ratio of the
judgment of the Apex Court, in Harshit Harish Jain vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2025 LawSuit (SC) 105, is applicable.
14. At this juncture, it may be relevant to take note of the 2 amendments,
which were made to Rule 218. For ready reference the amendment dated
20.12.2017 and 25.03.2021 is reproduced below:
" -218 -12/2017/1385/94
उपरोक्त नि यम में अधि सूचा संख्या
स्टा०नि ० -2-2017-700(265)/2016 नि ाक 20.12.2017 द्वारा परिरवर्त 
-
निकया गया जो नि म्वर्त् है

5
WRIC No. - 10692 of 2026

6
WRIC No. - 10692 of 2026
-218 -5/2021/398/94-
उक्त नि यम में पु  अधिसूचा संख्या
-2-2021-700(265)/2016 25.03.2021
स्टा०नि ० नि ाक द्वारा नि म्
-
परिरवर्त  निकये गये

7
WRIC No. - 10692 of 2026

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted, if the
amendment dated 20.12.2017 and 25.03.2021 applies to the facts of the
present case, the claim of the petitioner shall be ousted on the ground of
limitation; but however, he submits placing reliance on Section 50 that
the scheme of Act contemplates that the application for relief under
Section 49 shall be made within a period, in case of a stamp paper in
which an instrument has been executed by "any" of the parties thereto, of
6 months, after the date of instrument; and as such the cause of action
accrues within 6 months from the date of the instrument.
16. He further refers to Rule 218 which provides that the refund shall be
made strictly in accordance with Section 49 to 53 Chapter-V of the Act,
1899, and an application must be made within the period prescribed by
Section 50. However, in cases where the period operates as a serious
hardship and the holder of the stamp, without any fraudulent motive, is
unavoidably prevented from applying for relief within the prescribed
period, the Collector is authorized to allow refund and the period of 2
years provided therein can also be relaxed, at the instance of the State
Government.
17. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the scheme of Act, itself
contemplates that the cause of action would arise within 6 months and

8
WRIC No. - 10692 of 2026
once the cause of action has arisen, the law applicable on the said date
shall be applicable i.e. the unamended Rule 218, as it existed prior to
20.12.2017.
18. Though at the first instance, the aforesaid argument seems to be
attractive but in the facts of the case, admittedly, the application for
refund was filed on 27.04.2024; and accordingly the said argument
cannot be accepted, as the date of commencement of the cause of action
and the initiation of proceedings are distinct.
19. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the situation,
herein, clearly spells out that the petitioner with a legitimate expectation,
for execution of the tripartite agreement, had purchased the stamp and
the builder had also entered into an agreement; and only the signature of
the representative of the Noida Authority was required to complete the
tripartite agreement.
20. It is the specific case of the petitioner, that he was continuously
pursuing with the Noida Authority and eventually when his claim was
rejected on 16.05.2024, he had approached this Court; and this Court
vide judgment dated 06.03.2025, had recorded a specific finding that
"the benefit of refund of stamp duty would be applicable in the present
case".
21. Now I come to the second issue. It has not been disputed by the
parties that the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 06.03.2025
in Writ-C No.39180 of 2024, between the same parties, has attained
finality; and it is also trite law that the laws relating to forum and
limitation is procedural in nature, and is presumed to be retrospective in
its application, unless such a construction is textually impossible.
However, a procedural statute should not generally speaking be applied
retrospective, where the result would be to create new disabilities or
obligations or the impose new duties in respect of transactions already
accomplished (Reference: Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 1994 SCC (4) 602).

9
WRIC No. - 10692 of 2026
22. In the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) the Hon’ble Apex
Court held as follows in Paragraph No. 26:
“26. The Designated Court has held that the amendment would
operate retrospectively and would apply to the pending cases in
which investigation was not complete on the date on which the
Amendment Act came into force and the challan had not till then
been filed in the court. From the law settled by this Court in
various cases the illustrative though not exhaustive principles
which emerge with regard to the ambit and scope of an Amending
Act and its retrospective operation may be culled out as follows:
(i) A statute which affects substantive rights is presumed to be
prospective in operation unless made retrospective, either
expressly or by necessary intendment, whereas a statute which
merely affects procedure, unless such a construction is textually
impossible, is presumed to be retrospective in its application,
should not be given an extended meaning and should be strictly
confined to its clearly defined limits.
(ii) Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature,
whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal even
though remedial is substantive in nature.
(iii) Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no
such right exists in procedural law.
(iv) A procedural statute should not generally speaking be applied
retrospectively where the result would be to create new
disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties in respect of
transactions already accomplished.
(v) A statute which not only changes the procedure but also
creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be
prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either
expressly or by necessary implication."
23. The question of limitation which was earlier available, now in cases
where there was hardship and without any fraudulent motive, the
purchaser of the stamp was prevented from applying for relief within the
prescribed period, Rule 218 prescribed that the State Government may
irrespective of any time limit, dispose off the application for relief, even
in cases the 2 years had lapsed.
24. By way of the amendments dated 25.03.2021 and 20.12.2017,
created a new disability, by virtue of which the said relaxation at the

10
WRIC No. - 10692 of 2026
instance of the State Government, was confined eventually to a period of
8 years from the date of purchase of the stamp.
25. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) and the undisputed position that the
judgment dated 06.03.2025 has attained finality, which in clear terms
provided, that the petitioners' claim cannot be avoided for technical
reasons and is entitled to the benefit of refund of the stamp duty, this
Court is inclined to hold that the disability which is created by the
amendment dated 20.12.2017 and 25.03.2021 cannot be applied, even
retrospectively.
26. In the facts of the present case, though by the time the petitioner had
moved their application for refund, the new amendments were already in
place, but the time spent in pursuing the authorities to enter into a
Tripartite Agreement and eventually being rejected, for no fault of their
own but that of the builder, the disability which is created by the
subsequent amendment, cannot be enforced, against the petitioners, in
the facts of the present case, as also held by the Apex Court, in the case
of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (Supra); and for the reasons stated in the
judgment dated 06.03.2025, more particularly in para-9 in Writ-C
No.39180 of 2024, between the same parties, which has attained finality,
the order dated 29.09.2025 is hereby set aside with a direction to the
respondents to refund the stamp in terms of the application dated
27.04.2024 within a period of 2 months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
27. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
April 21, 2026
S.Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad