Time spent in stamp-duty adjudication must be excluded when computing the period for registration.

On 14 July 2017, Petitioner No. 1 granted Petitioner No. 2 a 999-year lease of land in Bhandup for a premium of ₹5 crore and annual rent of ₹1.

Petitioner No. 1 sought adjudication of stamp duty on 9 August 2017.

Following an appeal and further adjudication proceedings—including proceedings under the Maharashtra Stamp Duty Amnesty Scheme—the Collector of Stamps fixed stamp duty at ₹22,25,888, which was paid and endorsed on the instrument by 1 April 2025.

On 3 April 2025, the Collector issued a final order stating that the lease was ineligible for registration under a 2011 circular.

The Joint Sub-Registrar subsequently refused registration because the instrument had not been presented within the period prescribed by the Registration Act, 1908.

The Petitioners challenged both orders and sought registration without penalty.

1. Whether the period spent in stamp-duty adjudication could be excluded when determining whether the lease was presented for registration within the time prescribed by the Registration Act, 1908.

2. Whether the authorities could refuse registration where the delay was attributable to the pending adjudication proceedings before the Collector of Stamps.

Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908 prescribe the time for presenting documents and provide for acceptance of a document presented after the prescribed period in cases of urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, subject to the statutory conditions.

Applying the principles in Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada Dey, the Court relied on the maxims actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) and lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel the impossible): a party should not be prejudiced where it could not present a document because it was unavailable or because proceedings prevented presentation.

The Court also relied on the Bombay High Court’s decision in Nestor Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which had applied those principles in a similar context.

The Court found that the Petitioners had pursued stamp-duty adjudication from 9 August 2017 and that the Collector’s final order was made only on 3 April 2025.

Because the instrument remained subject to the adjudication process, the resulting delay was attributable to the Collector rather than to the Petitioners.

Applying Raj Kumar Dey and the cited equitable principles, the Court held that the adjudication period could not be counted against the Petitioners and that refusal to register on that basis would unjustly defeat their claim to registration.

It allowed the petition in terms of prayers (A) to (C), quashed the challenged orders to the extent specified in those prayers, and directed registration of the lease without charging a penalty.