Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the order dated 3.12.2010 passed by respondent No. 3, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) and the appellate order thereto dated 19.8.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp).

2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that that the petitioner was granted mining lease on 23.5.1995 for a period of five years. The petitioner presented the aforesaid lease-deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar who referred the matter to the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) for determination of the appropriate stamp duty. The Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) vide order dated 13.12.1995 determined the deficiency in stamp duty on the aforesaid lease-deed by Rs. 3,89,940/- and directed for payment of equivalent amount of penalty.

3. The aforesaid order was modified on 26.3.1996 and penalty was reduced to Rs. 160/- with the leave to the petitioner to deposit the deficiency in two instalments. First of Rs. 1 lac forthwith and the other of the remaining amount within a year.

4. Petitioner accordingly deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lac which was in addition to the stamp duty he had already affixed on the lease-deed but before he could deposit the balance amount, in the lease-deed itself was cancelled by the State Government vide order dated 2.7.1996.

5. On the lease-deed being cancelled the petitioner made an application on 21.12.1998 to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) to refund the stamp duty already paid by him and/or for returning the excess amount paid.

6. The Assistant Stamp Commissioner on the other hand, issued recovery against the petitioner to recover the balance stamp duty as was determined vide order dated 13.12.1995 and modified on 26.3.1996. The petitioner refused to pay the said amount as the lease-deed itself was cancelled and he was not allowed to operate it for the entire period of five years stipulated therein.

7. The recovery was challenged by the petitioner by means of Writ Petition No. 371 of 2005 in which initially stay of recovery was ordered but finally the writ petition was disposed of on 1.9.2010 with the direction to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s application dated 21.12.1998 for refund of the stamp duty and till any decision is taken on the said application the recovery was directed to remain stayed.

8. In pursuance thereof, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) dismissed the petitioner’s application dated 21.12.1998 for refund of stamp duty vide impugned order dated 3.12.2010 and the petitioner’s appeal against the same has been dismissed vide order dated 19.8.2011.

9. In short, petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application dated 21.12.1998 by which he had demanded refund of stamp duty on the ground that the lease-deed was cancelled by the State Government.

10. Undisputedly, the lease-deed was executed on 23.5.1995 for a period of five years which was cancelled by the State Government on 2.7.1996. Therefore, the petitioner operated the mining lease from 23.5.1995 till 2.7.1996/11.7.1996 i.e. for a period of about one year and fifty days only.

11. The authorities rejected the application for refund of the stamp duty paid on the aforesaid lease-deed on the ground that the instrument/lease was for a period of five years and once it was executed the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty. The period of operation of lease has no relevance for the payment of stamp duty.

12. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitle to refund of the whole amount as the lease was held to be illegal and cancelled or alternatively he is liable for payment of stamp duty on lease for the period it was operational and any excess amount paid is liable to be refunded.

13. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that stamp duty is payable on the execution of the ins