Allahabad High Court
Sheo Bhajan Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 July, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115110 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35005 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sheo Bhajan Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Yadav,Ankit,Krishna Nand Yadav With Petitioner :- Smt. Babli Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Yadav,Ankit,Krishna Nand Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2.Since the controversy involved in the present writ petitions are identical, therefore, both are being decided together with this common judgment.
3. For convenience, the facts are being delineated from Writ-C No.35005 of 2023.
4. By means of present writ petition, the following prayer has been made:-
"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure No.8 to this writ petition) passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi in Case No. 00449 of 2021, Computerized Case No. D202114700000449 (State Vs. Sheo Bhajan Sharma) under Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the impugned order dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure No.11 to this writ petition) passed by Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Region Varanasi in Case No. 1648 of 2021, Computerized Case No. C202114000001648 (Sheo Bhajan Sharma Vs. State of U.P.) under Section 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899)
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amounts Rs. 2,28,140/- deposited by the petitioner in treasury as deficiency in stamp duty, with interest.
(iii) ....."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale-deed was executed on 04.06.2011 in favour of Ms. Babli Singh, after paying due stamp duty thereof, wherein the plot number has been mentioned as 177 and when it came to the notice that the wrong plot number has wrongly been mentioned, filed the correction deed mentioning the correct number as 178 instead of 177.
6. He further submits that the said correction deed does not alter the measure of the area, boundaries nor create any fresh right to either of the parties, but the authorities have treated the correction deed as a fresh sale deed and levied the stamp duty accordingly, against which an appeal was preferred, but the same has also been dismissed.
7. He further submits that it was purely a clerical error, which has arisen due to inadvertence of the parties, therefore, the correction deed, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be treated as a fresh sale-deed.
8. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Smt. Vineeta Agarwal Vs. Additional Commissioner (Admn.) (Alld) and others, 2013 (99) ALR 714 and prays for allowing the present writ petition.
9. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders and submits that it is not simply a correction deed and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.
10. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.
11. It is not in dispute that the a sale-deed was executed on 04.06.2011 in favour of Ms. Babli Singh after paying the due stamp duty where the boundaries and area was specifically mentioned, but due to clerical error, which has arisen due to inadvertence of the parties, wrong plot number has been mentioned as 177 in place of 178, therefore, the wrong plot number mentioned in the sale deed is a purely a clerical mistake.
12. Further, on the sale deed, due stamp duty has already been paid and therefore, by filing correction deed, would not liable for payment of stamp duty as fresh sale deed and the same should have been considered only as a correction deed.
13. This Court in para nos.7, 8, 9 & 10 of the case of Smt. Vineeta Agarwal (supra) has held as under:-
"7. The mistake in mentioning the plot number in the lease deed is purely a clerical error which has arisen due to inadvertence of the parties, specially the office of the Allahabad Development Authority. The said correction deed does not create any new rights in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner by the said two documents read together only gets right in plot no.D-393 and, therefore, is liable for payment of stamp duty only once.
8. In Writ Petition No.20061 of 2011 C.L.Memorial Girls Post Graduate College Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Administration) and another dated on 16.5.2012, I have already held that a deed of correction to rectify certain clerical mistake arising in the sale deed already registered would not be liable to payment of stamp duty as a fresh sale deed and would be stamped only as a correction deed.
9. In view of the above, the aforesaid deed dated 7.2.2006 is a deed of correction and since it was necessitated on account of clerical mistake it would be chargeable to stamp duty under Article 34-A of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and stamp duty of Rs.10/- alone shall be payable on it. The petitioner has already paid a stamp duty of Rs.100/- on the said deed.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the authorities below have grossly erred in treating the above deed to be a fresh lease deed and demanding stamp duty accordingly."
14. In view of the above fact as stated above as well as looking to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Vineeta Agarwal (supra), the impugned orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed.
15. The writ petitions are allowed, accordingly.
16. Any amount deposited during the pendency of the present litigation, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of deposit to till the date of refund.
17. Before parting, since the issue in hand has already been decided by this Court in the year 2013, but still the petitioner has been dragged unnecessarily up to this Court, cost of Rs.50,000/- is awarded in both the writ petitions respectively which shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of one month from today.
18. The State are at liberty to recover the awarded cost from the erring officers.
19. A compliance affidavit shall be filed within two months.
20. List thereafter in Chamber.
21. The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the District Magistrate Concerned within a week from today.
22. Mr. Alok Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel-V be provided with one copy of this order free of charge within a week.
Order Date :- 19.7.2024 Pravesh Mishra