The main legal point established in the judgment is that a rectification deed correcting clerical errors in a sale-deed is covered by specific provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, impacting the determination of stamp duty.

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), District Kanpur Nagar, respondent No. 3 and appellate order dated 20.1.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, respondent No. 2.

2. Shri Verma submits that merely correction in one side of the boundary of the vended property was made by the correction deed executed by the Kanpur Development Authority, which fall under Article 34-A of Schedule I-B of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and therefore, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed manifest error of law and facts to determine the stamp duty treating the correction-deed as sale-deed.

3. Learned standing Counsel does not dispute the above position.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that a sale-deed was executed by the Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur in favour of the petitioners on 27.8.2008 in respect of plot No. 113/373 LIG Scheme, Swarn Nagari, Kanpur Nagar. The deed was drafted by the Kanpur Development Authority. The site plan was also annexed with the sale-deed, in which plot No. 373 is shown but due to clerical error the boundaries were wrongly mentioned at the bottom of the deed. The clerical error occurred was that on the East side boundary 7.50 meters wide road was mentioned while actually, it was 12 meters and on the West side 12 meters wide road was mentioned while actually it was plot No. 113/365 LIG. The mistake was detected from the sale-deed itself. It is not the case of the respondents that due to wrong mentioning of boundaries, which was correctly mentioned in the site map, there was any change in the valuation of the property. This mistake was defected by the Kanpur Development Authority, which executed a rectification deed dated 9.7.2009. This deed is the subject matter, on which the respondent No. 3 determined the stamp duty as a sale-deed and rejected the contention of the petitioner that it is correction deed falling under Article 34-A of Schedule I-B to the Act. The Appellate Authority has also taken the same view.

6. From the perusal of the original sale-deed itself, it is clear that although in the site plan annexed with sale-deed boundaries are mentioned but due to clerical error, the boundaries on the East and West side were incorrectly mentioned at the bottom of the deed. The deed was not drafted by the petitioner but it was drafted by the Kanpur Development Authority itself. The rectification deed in question was simple a correction of clerical error in the sale-deed, and therefore, it was clearly covered by Article 34-A of Schedule I-B to the Act.

7. In view of above discussions, the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Kanpur Nagar in Stamp Case No. 81/41/124/2011-12 under section 47-A/33 of the Act and the order dated 20.1.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur in Appeal No. 22 of 201 are hereby set aside. Any amount deposited by the petitioners or recovered by the respondents from the petitioners shall be refunded to the petitioners by the respondents within a month along with simple interest @ 8% per annum. The writ petition is allowed in terms as indicated above.