Lease Registration Delayed Eight Years During Stamp Duty Adjudication; Bombay High Court Excludes Authority-Caused Delay and Orders Registration, Holding Procedural Delay Cannot Defeat Substantive Rights
Party Cannot Suffer Because Stamp Authority Took Eight Years to Decide Duty; Bombay High Court Directs Registration of Kalpataru’s 2017 Lease
Facts
In Kalpataru Gardens Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the petitioners challenged two orders refusing registration of an Indenture of Lease and sought a direction to register it without penalty. The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M. Sethna. KALPATARU
On 14 July 2017, Kalpataru Gardens Ltd. executed an Indenture of Lease in favour of Petitioner No. 2 concerning 1,050 sq. metres of non-agricultural land at Village Bhandup, Mumbai, for an extraordinary term of 999 years. The annual rent was ₹1, while a one-time premium of ₹5 crore was paid. KALPATARU
Instead of directly presenting the document for registration, Petitioner No. 1 applied for adjudication of stamp duty. The instrument was submitted to the Collector of Stamps on 9 August 2017. Initially, stamp duty of ₹60,59,350 was determined. The petitioner challenged the valuation, and the Additional Controller of Stamps allowed the appeal on 16 August 2018 and directed reassessment. KALPATARU KALPATARU
On reassessment, an interim order valued the land at ₹8.65 crore and assessed stamp duty at ₹43,28,100. The petitioner objected to the valuation methodology, but its request for an explanation received no response. KALPATARU
The adjudication remained pending through the COVID-19 period. In January 2024, the petitioner applied under the Maharashtra Stamp Duty Amnesty Scheme, 2023. Ultimately, on 24 March 2025, the Collector revised the duty to ₹22,25,888, which the petitioner paid on 27 March 2025. The document was endorsed as duly stamped on 1 April 2025. KALPATARU
However, on 3 April 2025, the Collector recorded that the instrument was not eligible for registration because it had been executed in 2017. The Joint Sub-Registrar thereafter rejected registration on 24 April 2025, relying upon Sections 23–25 of the Registration Act and the expiry of the statutory time limit. KALPATARU
That refusal brought Kalpataru before the Bombay High Court.
Issues
The principal question was:
Can registration of a document be refused as time-barred when the document was promptly submitted for stamp-duty adjudication, but the adjudication itself remained pending before the authorities for several years?
The consequential issues were whether the period from 9 August 2017 to 3 April 2025 had to be excluded while computing the registration period, and whether the petitioners could be prejudiced by delay attributable to the Collector of Stamps rather than themselves.
Petitioners’ Arguments
Kalpataru argued that there was no culpable delay on its part. The document had been placed before the Collector for stamp-duty adjudication shortly after execution in 2017, and the petitioners continuously pursued those proceedings.
The final adjudication occurred only on 3 April 2025. Therefore, during the intervening period the petitioners could not practically complete registration.
Senior Counsel relied principally upon:
- Nestor Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3480; and
- Kanani Developers LLP v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 1066 of 2018.
The petitioners argued that time consumed by the statutory authority itself could not subsequently be invoked by the same State machinery to deny registration. KALPATARU
Respondents’ Arguments
The State relied on Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, which ordinarily requires presentation of a document for registration within four months of execution.
It argued that the Collector had originally assessed stamp duty as early as 15 December 2017. Therefore, according to the respondents, limitation should at least run from that date.
Since the lease had not been presented within the statutory period—and even the additional condonable period contemplated under Section 25 had expired—the authorities contended that the Sub-Registrar had no power to register it. KALPATARU
Analysis of the Law
1. Four-Month Registration Period Is Not Applied Mechanically Where Delay Is Beyond the Party’s Control
The Court examined Sections 23, 23A, 25 and 26 of the Registration Act.
Section 23 ordinarily requires registration within four months. Section 25 deals with cases where presentation is delayed because of urgent necessity or unavoidable circumstances. KALPATARU KALPATARU
The Division Bench rejected a mechanical construction of these provisions.
It held that registration cannot be refused where the delay is bona fide, neither intentional nor deliberate, and arises from a genuine cause beyond the party’s control. KALPATARU
2. Substantive Right Cannot Be Lost Because of Government Delay
This is the core ratio.
The Court held:
“A substantive legal right accrued to the Petitioners to have the document registered… cannot stand defeated, merely on account of some delay”
where the delay was not attributable to the person seeking registration and arose from circumstances beyond that person’s control. KALPATARU
Thus, the Court distinguished party-caused delay from authority-caused delay.
The Registration Act could not be interpreted so that the State takes years to complete stamp adjudication and thereafter relies upon those same years to declare registration barred.
Precedent Analysis
Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada Dey — AIR 1987 SC 2195
This was the principal Supreme Court authority.
The case concerned an arbitral award that remained in the custody of a court for years and therefore could not be presented for registration.
The Supreme Court applied two established equitable maxims:
Actus curiae neminem gravabit — an act of the Court shall prejudice no person.
Lex non cogit ad impossibilia — the law does not compel a person to perform the impossible. KALPATARU
The Supreme Court held that the period during which the award could not practically be presented had to be excluded. KALPATARU
The Bombay High Court applied the same reasoning to Kalpataru’s case.
Nestor Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court found Nestor Builders particularly relevant because it had relied upon Raj Kumar Dey in a similar factual context involving registration and delay.
The Division Bench expressly held that the precedent was applicable to the factual circumstances before it. KALPATARU
Kanani Developers LLP v. State of Maharashtra
This Division Bench order was also cited by the petitioners in support of the proposition that a party should not lose registration rights because of time consumed in stamp adjudication proceedings. KALPATARU
Court’s Reasoning
The Court closely examined the chronology.
The lease was executed on 14 July 2017.
It was submitted for adjudication on 9 August 2017.
The stamp-duty proceedings continued through appeals, reassessment, objections, the pandemic period and the Amnesty Scheme.
The Collector ultimately passed the final adjudication order only on 3 April 2025.
The Court therefore categorically found that:
the delay in presenting the document for registration was “purely attributable” to the Collector of Stamps.
The petitioners had diligently pursued the adjudication proceedings and were not responsible for the delay. KALPATARU
The Court also noted that Kalpataru’s entitlement under the Amnesty Scheme was undisputed and that it had actually paid the finally adjudicated stamp duty of ₹22,25,888. KALPATARU
Accordingly, the entire period between 9 August 2017 and 3 April 2025 had to be excluded when determining whether the lease was presented within time for registration. KALPATARU
The Court encapsulated the principle in particularly significant terms:
“Mere delay cannot defeat substantive justice.” KALPATARU
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition.
It held that the time consumed by the Collector of Stamps in adjudicating stamp duty had to be excluded while calculating the period for registration.
Consequently, the authorities were wrong in treating the 2017 lease as incapable of registration merely because several years had elapsed.
The Court held that the Indenture of Lease ought to have been registered in accordance with law and allowed the petition in terms of prayers (A) to (C). KALPATARU
The practical rule emerging from the judgment is significant:
Where a party timely submits an instrument for stamp-duty adjudication and diligently pursues those proceedings, delay attributable to the stamp authorities cannot subsequently be counted against that party to deny registration on limitation grounds.
Case Details
Case: Kalpataru Gardens Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Court: Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 1962 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:21314-DB
Coram: Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi & Justice Advait M. Sethna
Reserved: 23 September 2026
Pronounced: 29 September 2026 KALPATARU
Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned refusals set aside and registration of the lease directed in terms of prayers (A)–(C)
