The correction deed executed due to clerical error should not be treated as a new instrument requiring full stamp duty, but rather charged minimal duty to complete the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Shri Tarun Agrawal, alongwith Shri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned ACSC for the State - respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to register the correction deed dated 15.7.2015 in the name of the petitioner No. 1 as per the provision of Article 34-A of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to ensure registration of the correction deed without any further delay.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 1.3.2010, the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Noida') came out with a Scheme for commercial plots for builders/developers in Noida.

4. He further submits that the scheme, which opened on 1.3.2010, specifically contemplates a condition in paragraph Nos. 8(a), 8(d) and 8(e) providing that in case the land is allotted, then special purpose company shall be formed, which shall carry out all their responsibility as allottee and the execution of the lease deed will be made in favour of the special purpose company, which should be a registered firm or an incorporated company.

5. The petitioner No. 1, being consortium lead Member having shareholding of 90% and other Members, participated in the said Scheme vide application dated 20.3.2010. Thereafter, vide letter dated 26.3.2010, the petitioner was allotted the plot in question. After depositing the requisite amount of 10%, the petitioner approached the Noida to execute the lease deed as per the terms of the Scheme. Thereafter, on 31.3.2010, the lease deed was executed. vide letter dated 10.10.2011, the petitioner informed the Noida to an error on their part in execution of the lease deed dated 31.3.2010.

6. He further submits that in absence of lease deed having been registered in favour of the petitioner (special purpose company), the land could not be used for the required purpose. Further, the petitioner would not be able to commence its project as none of the bankers and financial institutions were willing to extend any credit facility to the petitioners. After great persuasion and various correspondence took place between the petitioners and the Noida, after a lapse of five years and 4 months, the Noida realized its mistake and agreed to enter into a correction deed and admitted the same as an inadvertent mistake on the part of Noida and executed the correction deed dated 15.7.2015.

7. He further submits that thereafter, the petitioners presented the correction deed to be registered as per the provisions of Article 34-A of Scheduled 1-B of the Stamp Act. The respondent, vide letter dated 21.7.2016, informed the petitioners that the correction deed is to be executed with full stamp duty. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.11.2020, the Noida cancelled the allotment of the plot in question and proceeded to take possession vide letter dated 27.11.2020, against which the petitioner preferred Writ C No. 2219/2021, in which vide interim order dated 18.2.2021, this Court has directed the Noida not to create any third party interest, which is still operating.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to non-registration of the name of the petitioner as SPC in the records of the Registrar, the petitioner is not able to enjoy and use the plot in question for the past 14 years, even after deposit of a substantial amount towards the total premium and paying the stamp duty. He further submits that the correction deed was executed purely on account of clerical error, inadvertent mistake, accidental slip on the part of the Noida, which is duly admitted by it, but the respondents (stamp authorities) are not willing to admit the same and is treating the correction deed as a separate instrument for the purpose of stamp duty contrary to the provisions of Article 34-A of Schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act. He furthe