IMPORTANT POINT
Making of allowances for impressed stamps would arise, if any of provisions mentioned in S. 49 attracted.

P.Naveen Rao, J.— The case of the petitioners is that first petitioner claims to have purchased the flat bearing No.G-11 on the ground floor of the building known as Ballad Estate admeasuring 1378.97 square feet and a common area of 100 square feet together undivided share of the land admeasuring 59.76 square yards out of 2548.67 square yards on plot no.7 in Sy.No.180/1 with premises bearing No.12-5-35/A/9, Tarnaka, Hyderabad under registered sale deed dated 2.7.2001 in document No.1311/2001 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Maredpally, Secunderabad. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner purchased the flat bearing No.G-10 on the ground floor in the same building admeasuring 992.20 square feet with common area of 100 square feet together with undivided share of land admeasuring 38.22 square yards out of 2548.67 square yards under registered sale deed dated 2.7.2001 bearing document No.1312/2001 registered in the same office. Petitioners obtained market value certificate from the 3rd respondent on 28.4.2001, which suggested payment of stamp duty for the transaction at Rs.1,12,035 insofar as first petitioner is concerned and Rs.77,345 insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, stamp duty was purchased to a tune of Rs.1,00,000 for the first petitioner and Rs.70,000 for the 2nd petitioner. On the stamps purchased, petitioners got engrossed the sale deed to present the same for execution and registration. When these two documents engrossed and presented before the 3rd respondent for verification as well as for registration, the 3rd respondent informed 1st the petitioner that he should engross only on stamp paper of value of Rs.52,305 and remaining amount of Rs.47,695 should be paid by way of cash. Similarly, for the 2nd petitioner she was directed to engross on stamp paper of Rs.42,525 and the remaining amount of Rs.34,820 should be paid by way of cash. As directed by third respondent, cash was paid. At the time of presentation of the document after the payment of cash as suggested by the 3rd respondent, petitioners have detached the stamp papers bearing Sl.Nos.15409 to 15412 each worth of Rs.10,000 for total of Rs.40,000 from the sale deed of first petitioner and stamp papers bearing Sl.Nos.15401 to 15404 each worth Rs.10,000 (2 papers) and each worth of Rs.5,000 (2 papers) for total of Rs.30,000 from the sale deed of the 2nd petitioner and in the place of detached stamp papers matter typed on white sheets were attached and presented for registration. Accordingly, the documents were registered.

2. Since the removed stamp papers are unfit for use for any other purpose and as stamp duty was not utilized for the purpose for which purchase was made, petitioners represented for refund of unused stamp duty as envisaged under Section 49 of the Stamp Act. The 2nd respondent passed orders rejecting their request for refund in proceedings No.GSO.1/17532/2001, dated 4.10.2001 and GSO.1/17533/2001, dated 4.10.2001, respectively. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners filed revisions before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent rejected the revision petitions by his orders in Proc. No. CCRA1/29405/2001 and CCRA1/29406/ 2001, dated 17.1.2004 Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.

3. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent is that there is no provision in Indian Stamp Act to allow refund of the amount of stamp duty in case stamp paper was already used for a document got registered after detaching of some stamp papers and replaced by plain papers with the same matter got typed. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled for seeking refund of the amount paid towards purchase of stamp papers.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were initially mislead by the registering authority in indicating total stamp duty payable and petitioners were not informed th