Patna High Court – Orders
Prabhu Prasad Sureka vs The State Of Bihar on 23 July, 2026
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21005 of 2025
======================================================
Prabhu Prasad Sureka Son of Late Chiranjeev Lal Sureka, Resident of
Village- Bhagwanpur Chak Seku, Ward No. 7, Post Office and Police Station-
Dalsinghsarai, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Prohibition,
Excise and Registration Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Nehru
Path, Patna- 800015.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration
Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Nehru Path, Patna- 800015.
3. The Inspector General (Registration) Prohibition, Excise and Registration
Department, Vikas Bhawan, New secretariat, Nehru Path, Patna- 800015.
4. The Deputy Inspector General (Registration) Prohibition, Excise and
Registration Department, Vikas Bhawan, new Secretariat, Nehru Path,
Patna- 800015.
5. The Collector-cum-Registrar, Begusarai.
6. The District Sub Registrar, Registration Officer, Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Shristi Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, JC to GA2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 23-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This instant writ application has been filed for the
following relief:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
2/16“1. i. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the respondents to refund the amount
of stamp duty and registration charges to the tune of Rs.
13,78,610/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Seventy-Eight Thousand
Six Hundred Ten only), which had been deposited by the
petitioner in connection with execution of the sale deed, which
was not registered and consequently, the petitioner filed an
application for cancellation of e-stamp under Form-7 in terms
of Rule 37 of the Bihar Stamp Rules in prescribed format has
not been refunded till date which action of the respondent is
arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. The respondents may
further be directed to refund the aforesaid amount along with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit
till the date of actual payment.
ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the respondents to consider and
dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 09.09.2025
seeking refund of the stamp duty and registration fees, as the
Sub-Registrar had refused to register the sale deed despite its
due execution and signatures by the executant.
iii. For any other relief reliefs to which the
petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
Added prayer in compliace to the order dated 09.07.2026
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or
direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order
dated 15.04.2026 passed in Miscellaneous. Case No. 23 of
2026 by the Collector, Begusarai, whereby the application
filed by the petitioner seeking refund of stamp duty and
registration fee amounting to Rs.13,78,650/- along with
interest has been rejected, which order is illegal, arbitrary,
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
3/16
and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus, that upon 2026 quashing
the order dated 15.04.2016 passed in Miscellaneous. Case
No. 23 of 2026 by the Collector, Begusarai, the respondent
authority may be directed to refund the stamp duty and
registration fee amounting to Rs. 13,78,650/-along with
interest forthwith.”
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner’s
son, Sanjay Surekha, had advanced a friendly loan of Rs.
2,47,70,000/- in tranches between 2005-2012 to Sanjiv Kumar
Agrawal, of which Rs. 37,00,000/- was repaid, leaving Rs.
2,10,70,000/- outstanding. After his son’s death on 21.04.2014,
the petitioner pursued recovery, and it was agreed that Sanjiv
Kumar Agrawal’s land at village Pachambha be sold in
adjustment of the dues, with the balance Rs. 8,24,000/- payable
after verification. A sale deed was executed on 11.05.2022
(Annexure P/1), and the petitioner deposited Rs. 3,44,640/- as
registration fee and Rs. 10,32,920/- as stamp duty, totalling Rs.
13,78,610/-, vide challan dated 11.05.2022 (Annexure P/2).
However, Sanjiv Kumar Agrawal failed to appear for
endorsement before the Sub-Registrar, denying registration. The
petitioner filed Title Suit No. 193 of 2022 on 06.07.2022 for
specific performance, impleading the Sub-Registrar and
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
4/16
Registrar, Begusarai, who in their written statement dated
15.12.2022 (Annexure P/3) admitted registration could not
proceed due to a status quo order in C.W.J.C. No. 349 of 2020.
On 09.09.2025, the petitioner sought refund of the Rs.
13,78,610/- under the prescribed rules of the Bihar Stamp Rules
(Annexure P/4), which went unprocessed, prompting the present
writ petition at the age of 88 years his age and lack of source of
income.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite
the subsisting status quo order, Sanjiv Kumar Agrawal executed
four fresh sale deeds Nos. 1094, 1095,1096 and 1097 on
05.02.2024 for the same land in favour of third parties,
registered with the connivance of the Sub-Registrar who is
Respondent No.6 (Annexure P/5 series). The petitioner’s refund
representation was thereafter rejected vide Letter No. 42 dated
02.01.2026 by the Collector-cum-Registrar, Begusarai, solely on
the ground of limitation period of one year from the date of
issuance of E-Stamp in terms of the Bihar E-Stamp Duty
(Implementation by Agency) Rules, 2020. It is also crucial to
note that the petitioner had been diagnosed with pancreatic
cancer and undergone surgery at Medanta, The Medicity,
Gurugram (pathological report at Annexure P/6), which were
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
5/16
also essential for consideration of the claim of refund but, the
same having been rejected vide impugned orders without
application of mind.
5. It is further submitted that pursuant to the Court’s
directions on 24.03.2026, the petitioner filed a representation
dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P/7) and appeared for personal
hearing before the Collector, explaining the delay on account of
his age, illness (diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in Patna in
August 2025), and his earlier unattended application dated
06.06.2022 for summons against the vendor. It also alleged that
the subject plots, though locked on the registration portal due to
the status quo order, were arbitrarily unlocked to enable
execution and registration of the four sale deeds on 05.02.2024
within a span of 30 minutes. The Collector, by order dated
15.04.2026 in Miscellaneous Case No. 23 of 2026 (Annexure
P/8), rejected the refund application on the erroneous ground of
possible future utilization of the stamp duty, contrary to Section
54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which makes it clear that a
stamp has a limited validity of six months and cannot be used
thereafter for any purpose, and without considering the delay-
condonation explanation.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
6/16
petitioner’s claim for refund of Rs. 13,78,610/- deposited
towards stamp duty and registration fee is squarely governed by
Clause 28(2) of the Bihar E-Stamp Duty (Implementation by
Agency) Rules, 2020, read with Notification No. 10/मु 0 SHCIL-
120/2017-71 dated 08.01.2021, which mandates that an
application for refund of a spoiled, misused, or unrequired e-
Stamp Certificate must be filed in Form-6 before the Collector
within one year from the date of purchase of the e-Stamp,
failing which no refund is admissible. Admittedly, the petitioner
purchased the e-Stamp on 11.05.2022 but filed his refund
application only on 09.09.2025, i.e., after a delay of over three
years, far beyond the statutorily prescribed period. The
application being ex facie time-barred, the Collector, Begusarai,
rightly rejected the same vide order dated 01.01.2026,
communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No. 42 dated
02.01.2026, and no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to
the said rejection, which is strictly in conformity with the
statutory scheme.
7. It is further submitted that in compliance with the order
dated 24.03.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court directing the
petitioner to appear before the District Magistrate, Begusarai on
30.03.2026 with a representation explaining the delay, in light of
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
7/16
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bano
Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and
Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps
and Ors. reported in (2025) 2 SCC 201 that mere technicality of
limitation ought not to defeat a bona fide refund claim, while the
petitioner duly appeared and filed his representation along with
supporting documents. The District Magistrate, Begusarai, after
affording due hearing and upon consideration of the entire
material and record placed before him, passed a reasoned order
dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure-C of supplementary counter
affidavit) rejecting the petitioner’s claim for refund. It is
submitted that the said order having been passed in strict
compliance with and in due deference to the directions of this
Hon’ble Court, and after independent application of mind to the
reasons furnished for the delay.
8. While giving thoughtful consideration of the issues
raised for adjudication, this Court finds it apt to record that the
grounds which have been taken by the counsel for the State to
justify the impugned order has seriously been objected by the
counsel for the petitioner, stating that the reasons for not filing
application within the stipulated period has already been
explained by making a clear mention of the fact that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
8/16
documents which were presented before the Registering
authority for registering the document could not be registered
because the vendor namely Sanjiv Kumar Agrawal did not
appear before the Registering authority and the vendor executed
four fresh sale deeds Nos. 1094, 1095,1096 and 1097 on
05.02.2024 for the same land in favour of third parties, and the
Registering authority without any objection to the same got it
registered in the name of proposed vendee, ignoring the earlier
commitment for which there was already a suit specific
performance filed, which is still pending. Despite all these facts
being available with the Registering authority, the same was not
considered and the grounds for rejection has been attributed that
the delay has not been properly explained, while the issues of
delay were also duly explained in this background, before the
District Registrar, for persuading him for refund.
9. In order to buttress his submission, the petitioner
has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Bano Saiyed Parwaz (supra) wherein it has been held
that the limitation prescribed within which, if the application is
not filed, may bar the remedy consequent to which the person
may be restrained from seeking refund as per the legislation but,
the right of refund is not taken away with such limitations
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
9/16
having been prescribed in the said legislation. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further submits that the sufferings with regard
to the petitioner which is being faced in the form of the
Pancreatic cancer and details of which were also placed with all
the supportive materials but for unexplained reasons have also
not been considered by the District Registrar, Begusarai.
10. It has next been submitted that the only ground
which has been raised by the counsel for the State for rejecting
the refund application is that the delay has not been properly
explained while the counsel for the petitioner, referring to the
Rule 28(2) of the Bihar Stamp (Payment of Duty by means of E-
Stamping) Rules, 2020, submits that the rule provides for
application to be made within a period prescribed and once such
application is not made within the time prescribed, in such
event, the amount shall not be refunded, is contrary to the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in view of the
judicial pronouncement made on the subjects in issue.
11. This Court in order to decide the issues at hand,
finds it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Bano Saiyed Parwaz (supra), wherein, it is
held;
“16. We draw weight from the aforesaid
judgment and are of the opinion that the case of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
10/16appellant is fit for refund of stamp duty insofar as it
is settled law that the period of expiry of limitation
prescribed under any law may bar the remedy but
not the right and the appellant is held entitled to
claim the refund of stamp duty amount on the basis
of the fact that the appellant has been pursuing her
case as per remedies available to her in law and she
should not be denied the said refund merely on
technicalities as the case of the appellant is a just
one wherein she had in bona fide paid the stamp
duty for registration but fraud was played on her by
the vendor which led to the cancellation of the
conveyance deed.”
12. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated and
further explained by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Harshit Harish Jain & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
& Ors., (2025) 3 SCC 365, wherein the court observed:
“20. Denying a legitimate refund solely on
technical grounds of limitation, especially when the
timing of registration fell close to the legislative
amendment, fails to strike the equitable balance
ordinarily expected in fiscal or quasi-judicial
determinations. A measure of discretion or
consideration for good faith conduct is not alien to
statutory processes that safeguard citizens from
unjust enrichment by the State.”
13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
11/16
petitioner’s claim for refund cannot be defeated merely on the
ground of delay, particularly when the delay stands satisfactorily
explained and the petitioner had bonafidely presented the
document for registration, but the transaction failed solely on
account of the conduct of the vendor. To deny refund in such
circumstances would amount to permitting unjust enrichment by
the State, which is impermissible in law.
14. In the case of Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v.
Government of NCT & Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 262, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the State cannot be allowed or
permitted to unjustly enrich itself, much less in absence of there
being any plausible justification for non-refunding the amount
and relying upon the dictum rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Ors., v. Union Of India &
Ors. reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536 “……. A person who
unjustly enriches himself cannot be permitted to retain the same
for its benefit except enrichment. Where it becomes entitled
thereto doctrine of unjust enrichment can be invoked
irrespective of any statutory provisions.”
15. From the above, it can safely be construed that the
said doctrine can be invoked irrespective of any statutory
provision, when it is established on facts that there is no legal
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
12/16
justification to retain such amount. This Court is of the view that
permitting the State to retain the stamp duty paid by the
petitioner, despite the reasons for failure of the transaction in
question being beyond the petitioner’s control, would only
facilitate the state being unjustly enriched.
16. This court in order to deal with the issues of delay
and its condonation, coming in the way of the District Registrar,
in not permitting refund to the petitioner, is required to
addressed, by referring to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Mohd. Abaad Ali & Anr. vs. Directorate of Revenue
Prosecution Intelligence reported in (2024) 7 SCC 91 wherein
the Supreme Court has observed that unless there is an express
or implied bar to the applicability of the Limitation Act in a
particular Special Act, the provisions of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act would apply. That was a case where a belated
appeal against acquittal was filed under Section 378 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and the appeal was accompanied by an
application for condonation of the appeal. The delay
condonation application was allowed by Delhi High Court and,
thereafter, an application was moved for re-calling of the said
order on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would
not apply, since the period of filing an appeal against acquittal
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
13/16
has been. prescribed under Section 378(5) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure itself and there is no provision for
condonation of delay. The said application came to be dismissed
which was challenged before the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court after analyzing the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Limitation Act, 1963 held that the
benefit of Section 5 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal
in the absence of exclusionary provision under Section 378 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure or at any other place in the
Court.
17. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the Counsel for the Petitioner and the State including the
materials placed for consideration and the Judgments referred
hereinabove, the impugned orders dated 01.01.2026 rejecting
the application for refund of E-stamp fees including the Order
dated 15.04.2026, which are said to have been passed in Misc.
Case No.- 23 of 2026 by the Collector, Begusarai, whereby the
application for refund made by the petitioner has been rejected
solely on the ground that the application is barred by limitation
and there is no sufficient ground put forth for consideration for
refund has been made deserves to be interfered with as the
District Registrar has failed to appreciate that there is no express
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
14/16
bar in the legislation that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
would not apply in adjudication of the cases for refund made by
the applicant, whose registration of documents placed before the
Registering authority, for the reasons being beyond his control
could not be carried out, while in the instant case, the plausible
reasons that the litigations have been generated on account of
refusal by the vendor to ensure appearance before the
Registering authority and same property having been registered
in favour of other vendee by the same vendor through four
different Registered deed by the same Registering authority
after presentation of the document by the petitioner for same
property was surely a well-reasoned explanation for
consideration and further the Registering authority, being aware
of the fact that the same property for which the petitioner had
already presented the deed for registration and the vendor for
ulterior reasons have executed the said sale-deed in favour of
others generating civil litigation, the District Registrar was
required to have applied its quasi-judicial mind while
adjudicating the claim of refund keeping in row the fact that
fresh rights have been created making the original dispute more
complicated, and there being no likelihood of such suit being
disposed in near future and besides the petitioner’s suffering
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
15/16
with pancreatic cancer for which treatments are being
undertaken and there is a dire need of financial support shown
before this Court and equally before the District Registrar,
Begusarai and such issues having not been adjudicated on merit,
and purely on technical grounds referred in the aforementioned
impugned orders to reject the claim of refund, this Court is of
the firm view that without going into the issues of limitation, the
necessary orders with regard to refund is required to be passed
by the District Magistrate, Begusarai by adjudicating the claim
of refund on merit by condoning the delay and finding the claim
to be justified, the amount shall be refunded in favour of the
petitioner shall be made forthwith. The reason put forth before
this Court in explaining the delay for application for refund of e-
stamp fee is apparently a sufficient cause/good grounds for
condoning the delay by applying Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 which has not been considered prudently by the
authorities.
18. Accordingly, both the impugned orders dated
01.01.2026 and 15.04.2026 which is said to have been passed in
Misc. Case No. 23 of 2026 by the Collector, Begusarai are set
aside and the Collector, Begusarai is directed to refund the
amount to the petitioner forthwith in above terms.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21005 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2026
16/16
19. With the aforementioned observations and
direction, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-
U
