A claim for refund of excess stamp duty is unsustainable if filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and based on voluntary payment without evidence of overcharging.

ORDER :

1. Challenging the order dated 02.09.2010 passed by the respondent No.1, Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, wherein and whereby the petitioner/applicant was informed that the refund of stamp duty paid voluntarily at the time of registration of document is not provided for under Section 45(2) of Indian Stamp Act hence, the request for refund of the stamp duty paid on a document registered cannot be considered, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a member of Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) obtained vide Membership bearing No.2476 from the year 1980. As per the norms of the Society, the petitioner is eligible for allotment of one plot in the Society, but the Society deleted the petitioner’s name from the lots in the year 1980-81 and in subsequent allotments. The petitioner questioned the same by filing a petition under Section 62 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act before the Arbitrator vide ARC. No.71 of 1989 and the Arbitrator has passed orders on 22.07.1991 directing the Society to allot one Plot to the petitioner against which the Society preferred an appeal i.e. CTA. No.21 of 1991 and the same was dismissed on 12.03.1996. Thereafter, W.P. No.10607 of 2000 was filed by the Society and the same was dismissed on 29.06.2000 against which an appeal in W.A. (SR) No.38730 of 2005 was filed by the Society and the same was dismissed. Assailing the same, the Society filed SLP No.7609 of 2007 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed and confirmed the award passed by the Arbitrator.

3. It is further submitted that after dismissal of the W.P. No.10607 of 2000 the petitioner filed E.P. No.53 of 2001 before the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for execution of the award passed by the Arbitrator. After dismissal of the said SLP the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad directed the Society to register the sale deed granting one month time and when the Society failed to register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the trial Court registered the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

4. It is further submitted that at the time of registration, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.4,160/- towards stamp duty andRs.1,160/- towards TPT, registration charges of Rs.290/- totalling toRs.5,610/- and filed an application under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1989 before the respondent No.3 with a request to fix the market value with relevance to the sale consideration and topography of the land. The respondent No.3 kept the document pending registration and referred the application to the respondent No.2. The respondentNo.2 passed an order on 28.06.2008 vide proceedings bearingNo.MV/47-A/14832/2008 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.16,26,538/- in addition to the stamp duty and other charges already paid. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the amount as per the orders passed by the respondent No.2 and the sale deed was registered vide document bearing No.2741 of 2008 dated 15.03.2008.

5. It is further submitted that as directed by the respondent No.2 during the course of site inspection by the respondent No.3 subsequent to registration of the said document, it was observed that the area mentioned in the schedule of the sale deed and registered is found to be in excess than the area available on the ground. The total extent of the land as shown in the sale deed is 460 square yards or 384.25 square meters whereas as per the land available on ground as per inspection was 370.76 square yards or 310 square meters and that an extent of 89.24 square yards has been shown in excess due to wrong calculation. This mistake was noticed and the same was rectified through Court order vide Rectification Deed bearing document No.3707 of 2009 dated 05.12.2009.

6. It is further submitted that after execution of the Rectification deed, the petitioner filed an application