Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Office Of The Deputy Commissioner North ... on 31 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/ODCNW/A/2023/640661 &
CIC/REVDP/C/2023/649504
Akshay Kumar Malhotra .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Stamps and Registration
Branch, Office of Distt
Magistrate North West,
Kanjhawala, Delhi - 110081 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.07.2025
Date of Decision : 30.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeal/complaint are clubbed together as the
Appellant/Complainant is common and subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
1. CIC/ODCNW/A/2023/640661
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 24.04.2023
First appeal filed on : 25.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21.08.2023
Page 1 of 12
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.03.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Information requested in the present RTI Application is related to a refund request for Stamp Duty paid by me,, with subject as 'Refund / Allowance for Stamp under Section 49 of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899.' 1st time I submitted this request for refund which was submitted in O/o SDM, Sarawaswati Vihar, Delhi at old School Building Rampura, Delhi, vide Diary No. 961 Dated 26.02.2020, with subject as 'Refund / Allowance for Stamp under Section 49 of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899.' But unfortunately the then SDM, during February, 2020, Mr Mohd. Rehan Raza, didn't act on this request.
2nd time the Reminder request submitted by me at Office of SDM, Saraswati Vihar, GNCTD, Rampura, Delhi-110 035, vide Diary No. 10222 Dated 01.08.2022. This time the SDM-Saraswati Vihar, Delhi was Mr Chander Shekher But nothing heard of from him also, except after visiting the Stamps and Registration Branch, Govt of NCT of Delhi at 5 Sham Nath Marg, Delhi, from where I was informed that my Refund request is been computerized in FILE MONITORING SYSTEM OF GNCTD, with the following details:
FILE HISTORY
Computer Number 095707329 Dated 25/08/2022
File No. F.No.SDM/SV/2022/99
Subject, Refund filed by Akshay Kumar Malhotra,
AC-1/179 A, Ground Floor, Shalimar
Bagh, Delhi-110088
Dept to which file belong DC(North-West)
Senders Date 25/08/2022
(Copy of the File History is attached herewith) Violation of RTI Act, 2005 by the Public Authority Time and again, it is directed by various Judicial Courts (H'ble Supreme Court and H'ble High Courts) as well as Central Information Commission that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be provided i. to concerned individual for a individual specific case and ii. to be displayed in the public domain for issues involving larger public interest Page 2 of 12 should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
Even though the information requested by me in my RTI Application is an information related to me only but having an impact of larger public interest also, as the information involves non refund of Stamp Duty paid by me in my particular case but which might have the case of other citizen also suffering with the same issue of their money is not been refundedby public authority and no clarificatory statement also issued by the public authority, as all the information requested in my RTI Application should have been provided to me at its own by the public authority, but they didn't do it and hence violation of Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
So, a citizen has to file a RTI Application, for an information, which otherwise should have been made available to the citizen, at its own by the Public Authority, in the normal course.
In this respect, I request for the following information, which is related to my pending request, as per details above.
Following information is requested for:
1. Please inform me the status of the abovementioned request for refund of Stamp Duty.
2. Please inform me the action taken on the abovementioned request for refund of Stamp Duty.
3. Please inform me the entire sequence of flow of my abovementioned request for refund of Stamp Duty along with respective dates of such forwarding / flow of the document of my above mentioned request, with different persons within Public Authority, along with the names and designation of all such people to whom my above mentioned request is forwarded.Page 3 of 12
4. Please also inform me the action taken by each of the official, as mentioned in 3 above, along with dates of such action, on my above mentioned request.
5. Please inform me the names of those public servants along with their
(i) designations, (ii) complete addresses and (iii) contact details viz official landline numbers, official mobile number, official email IDs etc, who are responsible for resolving this pending request for refund of Stamp Duty.
6. Please inform me the reasons for inaction by concerned Deptt, in case no action is taken on my above mentioned request.
7. Please inform me the procedures and responsibilities of different public servants within the Public Authority, to act upon such requests and the time frame within which such requests shall be attended into and action to be taken.
8. Please inform the names and designations of all other erring public servants, who are responsible for such inaction, on my above mentioned request.
9. Please inform me the action that are actually taken (punitive as well as disciplinary) by Public Authority against the concerned erring public servants, responsible for such inaction on their part, as is mentioned in the point above.
10. If, there is any leniency in penalizing or no penalties levied (punitive as well as disciplinary) or no action taken by Public Authority against such erring public servants, responsible for such inaction on their part, then I am to be provided with the complete information leading to any such leniency in penalizing ( punitive as well as disciplinary) or no action taken by Public Authority against such erring public servants.
11. I am to be provided with copies of the entire set of documents related to action taken by each such public servant of the Public Authority.
12. As per the provisions of Section 2(j) (i), 2(j)(ii), 2(j) (iii) and 2(j) (iv) of RTI Act, 2005, I also want to have and to get the right to Inspect the entire file, work, records and all documents related to the above mentioned case and all the file notings and action taken by different officials of Public Authority on said case and taking notes, extracts or Page 4 of 12 certified copies of documents or records and taking certified samples of material Obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 24.04.2023 stating as under:
"1 The original file of your refund is received from Stamp and Registration Branch, 5 Sham Nath Marg.
2 As per Sub-Registrar VI-A letter there is no excess stamp duty has been collected on the rectification deed registered on 19/10/2019. So refund of stamp duty may not be paid.
3 As above.
4 As above.
5 As above.
6 Ν.Α.
7 Action was taken on your application as in Answer No.1 and 2 8 Ν.Α.
9 Ν.Α.
10 Ν.Α 11 Action was taken on your application as in Answer No.1 and 2 12 The file has been inspected by the applicant on 01/08/2022."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 07.07.2023, held as under:
"Heard the submissions and gone through the records, I find that the PIO/SDM (Saraswati Vihar), has provided the information to the appellant but the appellant is not satisfied with the information provided. Therefore, PIO/SDM (Saraswati Vihar), (North West) is hereby directed to provide complete point wise information to the appellant Page 5 of 12 within 15 days of receipt of this order as per available office record other than third party information. Further, the applicant is directed to visit the office under the intimation to PIO for inspection of records.
Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
2. CIC/REVDP/C/2023/649504 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 22.03.2023 CPIO replied on : 25.04.2023 First appeal filed on : 25.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.07.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.10.2023 Information sought:
5. The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 22.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"The present case of Refund / Allowance for Stamp under Section 49 of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899, for the Excess eStamp paid by me on the Rectification Deed for the DDA built flat which is used by me as a Self Occupied Freehold Residential House Property AC-1/179A, Ground Floor, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi- 110 088.
Facts of the present case are as under:
1. I purchased the abovementioned property through Sale Deed and Document of Sale Deed was Registered vide Registration No. 12,185, in Addl. Book No. 1, Volume No. 2,536 on pages 99 to 105, Registered on 18.12.2009, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar No. VI A, Delhi.
2. Due to typographical mistake the area of the said property was wrongly / incorrectly mentioned / written as 62 Sq Mtrs. in the Sale Deed dated 18.12.2009, instead of the true and correct area of 73 Sq Mtrs.,
3. This typographical error happened due to wrong pressing of the number keys on the laptop key board, where instead of pressing the correct key on key board, the key preceding the correct keys was pressed i.e. instead of pressing key '7', wrongly pressed the preceding key of '6' and similarly instead of Page 6 of 12 correctly pressing the key '3', it was wrongly pressed the preceding key as '2' and thus area was wrongly mentioned as 62 Sq Mtrs as against the correct 73 Sq mtrs.
4. Circle Rate on 18.12.2009 was Rs. 11,300/- pr Sq Mtr.
5. Total Circle Rate for 73 Sq Mtrs was Rs 824900/- (73 x 11300).
6. Stamp Duty applicable on 18.12.2019 was 6% (3% +3%), and accordingly the Stamp Duty payable on 73 Sq Mtrs, as per Circle rate, was Rs 49500/-.
7. However the actual Purchase Consideration was Rs 19,00,000/- i.e. much above the circle rate.
8. So, Stamp duty payable and actually paid for on Rs 19,00,000/- was Rs 114000/-i.e. stamp duty actually paid was much above (by Rs 64500/-) the applicable circle rate on 18.12.2009.
9. This mistake of area, as mentioned above, was detected just 4 months back and then I decided to get the area corrected through Rectification Deed.
10. Due to error at my end, for some professional reasons, I calculated the Stamp Duty on this additional 11 Sq Mtrs at the current prevailing circle rate of Rs 66240/- and which came out to Rs 7,28,640/- (say Rs 7,30,000/-), whereas no additional consideration was paid to the seller by me for getting this rectification Deed executed.
11. So, in continuation of this mistake, as mentioned above, I calculated the stamp duty on Rs 7,30,000/- at the present applicable rate of 6%, amounting to Rs 43,800/- and this amount of Rs 43,800/- I paid on 10.10.2019, to purchase eStamp vide Certificate No. IN-DL66771839109155R.
12. Similarly, by mistake, I paid 1% e-Registration fees on Rs 7,30,000/- amounting to Rs 7,300/- and this amount of Rs 7,300/- I paid on 11.10.2019, vide Receipt No. DL1111091910108 alongwith copying fees + Service Charges+GST, and the total amount paid by me was Rs 7417/-
13. Whereas, fact of the situation was that I had already paid the e-Stamp and e-Registeration fees on 18.12.2009 itself on the entire 73 Sq Mtrs and that too on the higher side and excess by Rs 64500/-, as compared to applicable cicle rate on 18.12.2009, because the actual consideration on transfer / sale of property was much higher than the applicable circle rate of 18.12.2009.
14. I came to know about the mistake, only when I visited the SR's office on appointed Date and time on 15.10.2019 at 11:32 AM and when the Computer Page 7 of 12 Software system of the front end executive refused to accept the application due to mis-match in Duty payable and Duty actually paid. The lady executive at front desk referred the case to SR-VI A for advice and at which she was advised to accept the document for registration and I was told that let the document be registered now and later the refund could be pursued.
15. And accordingly a Cash Receipt of Rs 1100/- (Rs 1000/- as Registration Fees and Rs 100/- as Copying Fees) was issued to me vide Receipt S. No. 22,106 on Registration Date 15/10/2019 at 12:52:50 and a Stamp Duty fees of Rs 50/-
16. Since it was only a typographical error where area of '62' Sq Mtrs was mentioned instead of correct area of '73' Sq Mtrs.
17. And whereas, the Municipal Corporation taxes are been paid every year, from the year 2002-03 till date, on the entire 73 Sq Mtrs. of the covered area for the above said property.
18. And whereas, both the parties had agreed that they shall abide by all the other terms and conditions of the above said Sale Deed Registration No. 12,185, in Addl. Book No. 1, Volume No. 2,536 on pages 99 to 105, Registered on 18.12.2009, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar No. VI A, Delhi except of Rectification of above mentioned typographical error of mentioning the area of the property as 62 Sq Mtrs instead of true and correct area of 73 Sq Mtrs
19. This Rectification Deed was Registered vide Registration No. 15,583, in Book No. 1, Volume No. 8,743 on page number 12 to 18, Registered on 18.10.2019, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar No. VI A, Delhi.
20. Hence I paid excess amount of Stamp Duty and Registration Fees of Rectification Deed, as per tabulation hereunder:
Heads Correct amount Incorrect Amount Refund Amount Paid by me due to me Stamp Duty Rs. 50/- Rs. 43, 800/- Rs. 43, 750/- E-Registering Fees Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 7,300/- Rs. 6,300/-
Copying Fees Rs. 100/- Rs. 100/- Rs. Nil Total Rs. 1150/- Rs. 51,200/- Rs. 50,050
21. Earlier also I lodged a request for refund of the abovementioned stamp duty and registration fees excess paid by me as per the details hereunder:
i. RGMS webportal Request Registration No.2019000004 Dt 12.12.2019 ii. RGMS webportal Request Registration No.2019000005 Dt 12.12.2019 iii. RGMS webportal Request Registration No. 2020000042 Dt 21.01.2020 iv. RGMS webportal Request Registration No. 2020000062 Dt 08.02.2020 Page 8 of 12 v. PGMS webportal Request Registration No. 2020006466 Dt 21.01.2020 So, I have been requesting to refund back the above money excess paid by me since 12.12.2019, but I don't know why this could not reach your office. So, now I am putting a formal hard copy with a request to please get the amount refunded back to me at the earliest. I am attaching herewith copies of the Sale Deed Dated 18.12.2009 and Rectification Deed 18.10.2019"
6. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 25.04.2023 stating as under:
"1.The original file of your refund is received from Stamp and Registration Branch, 5 Sham Nath Marg.
2.As per Sub-Registrar VI-A letter there is no excess stamp duty has been collected on the rectification deed registered on 19/10/2019. So refund of stamp duty may not be paid.
3.As above.
4.As above.
5.As above.
6.Ν.Α.
7.Action was taken on your application as in Answer No.1 and 2
8.Ν.Α.
9.Ν.Α.
10.Ν.Α
11.Action was taken on your application as in Answer No.1 and 2
12.The file has been inspected by the applicant on 01/08/2022."
7. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 25.04.2023.
The FAA vide its order dated 07.07.2023, held as under:
"Heard the submissions and gone through the records, I find that the PIO/SDM (Saraswati Vihar), has provided the information to the appellant but the appellant is not satisfied with the information provided. Therefore, PIO/SDM (Saraswati Vihar), (North West) is hereby directed to provide complete point Page 9 of 12 wise information to the appellant within 15 days of receipt of this order as per available office record other than third party information. Further, the applicant is directed to visit the office under the intimation to PIO for inspection of records.
Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
9. The Commission also noted that proof of having served a copy of his Second Appeal and the Complaint on the Respondent has not been uploaded by the Appellant/Complainant while filing the same before the Commission. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Himanshu Yadav, PIO-cum-SDM/Saraswati Vihar, attended the hearing in person.
10. The Appellant/Complainant stated that the PIO-cum-SDM/Saraswati Vihar, was directed to provide a revised reply with fifteen days by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.07.2023 but till date no compliance has been made by the PIO. He informed the Bench of the fact that he has paid the excess stamp duty in the Sub-Registrar's office for which an application for refund of Stamp Duty has been filed but till date the said Application has not been adjudicated and stated that the e- Stamp has been locked by the Sub-Registrar.
11. The Respondent submitted that submitted that in compliance with the directions of FAA, comments were sought from the Sub-Registrar concerned. The Sub-Registrar VI-A vide letter dated 29.06.2024 has informed the office that no excess stamp duty has been collected on the rectification deed. Accordingly, no refund of stamp duty is due towards Appellant/Complainant. He added that an updated reply has been given to the Appellant/Complainant vide letter dated 14.02.2025, stating as follows:
1) "The application in original was forwarded to Sub-Registrar VI-A, 5th floor Ambedkar Bhawan, Sector-16, Rohini Delhi. As per Sub-Registrar Vi-A latter Page 10 of 12 there is no excess stamp duty has been collected on the rectification deed (Copy enclosed)
2) The application in original was forwarded to Sub-Registrar VI-A, 5" floor Ambedkar Bhawan, Sector-16, Rohini Delhi. As per Sub-Registrar Vi-A latter there is no excess stamp duty has been collected on the rectification deed (Copy Enclosed)
3) The information sought is declined under Section 11 of Right to information act, 2005
4) The information of action taken by all the concerned authorities have already been informed (Copy Enclosed)
5) The information of action taken by all the concerned authorities have already been informed as stated above (Copy Enclosed)
6) The information sought is declined under Section 11 of Right to information act, 2005
7) The information of action taken by all the concerned authorities have already been informed (Copy Enclosed)
8) The information sought is declined under Section 11 of Right to information act, 2005
9) The information sought is declined under Section 2 (f) and 11 of Right to Information act, 2005
10) The information sought is declined under Section 2(1) of Right to information act, 2005
11) The application in original was forwarded to Sub-Registrar VI-A, 5" floor Ambedkar Bhawan, Sector-16, Rohini Delhi. As per Sub-Registrar Vi-A latter there is no excess stamp duty has been collected on the rectification deed (Copy enclosed).
12) The information of action taken by all the concerned authorities have already been informed above (Copy Enclosed)
13) The file has been inspected by the applicant 01/08/2022. The same was also mentioned in the revised reply to the applicant Dt. 01/08/2022 (Copy Enclosed)"
Decision:
12. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent in compliance with the direction of the FAA, has provided an updated reply to the Appellant/Complainant vide letter dated 14.02.2025, and therefore, this case does not warrant any action Page 11 of 12 under Section 18 of the RTI Act against the answering Respondent as it does not bear any mala fide. Grievance of the Appellant/Complainant about alleged refund of excess stamp duty cannot be addressed under the scope and ambit of the RTI Act. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant cases.
The Appeal and Complaint are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)