Petitioners approached this Court because excess registration fees and stamp duty were not refunded despite a prior order directing such refund. The Court directed respondents to refund the excess amount within six weeks.
Respondents to refund excess stamp duty and registration fee to petitioners within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
WRIT PETITION No.32043 OF 2010
ORDER:
Petitioners claim to have purchased the property bearing D.No.39-1-16B situated at M.N.R.Street, Labbipet, Vijayawada, and presented the sale deeds in respect of the said property before the 2nd respondent-Sub-Registrar, Patamata, for registration of the same. It is their case that the 1st respondent-District Registrar passed the order, dated 31.08.1999, fixing the market value of the subject site at Rs.6,000/- per square yard and the value of the structures therein at Rs.2,75,000/-, and as per the said order, they paid registration fee and stamp duty for registration of the documents in question. However, against the said order dated 31.08.1999 passed by the District Registrar, the petitioners preferred C.M.A.No.8 of 2001 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, who, by order dated 25.10.2002, assessed the market value of the site at Rs.3,000/- per square yard deferring from the valuation arrived at by the District Registrar. Aggrieved thereby, the District Registrar filed Civil Revision Petition No.1529 of 2003 before this Court, whereas the petitioners filed W.P.No.3371 of 2003 before this Court, seeking a direction to the concerned to register the documents as per the orders dated 25.10.2002 passed in CMA.No.8 of 2001 and deliver them apart from returning the excess amount lying with them. During pendency of the said writ petition, in the light of the interim orders passed in WPMP.No.4420 of 2003 dated 16.02.2004, the documents were registered on 08.10.2004. Subsequently, this Court, by common order dated 20.09.2007, dismissed CRP.No.1529 of 2003 and allowed
W.P.No.3371 of 2003 directing the respondents to refund the excess amount lying with them to the petitioners respectively and making the 1st petitioner liable to pay any additional amount, if required to do so, by any orders that may be passed in future in connected C.R.P. (SR)No.13342 of 2003.
The grievance of the petitioners is that till date the excess amount paid by them is not refunded, in spite of there being a direction to the respondents to refund the same. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions.
Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents would refund the excess amount of stamp duty and registration fee paid by the petitioners expeditiously.
In view of the aforementioned submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to refund the excess amount of stamp duty and registration fee collected by them, in respect of the subject property, to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J
19.01.2011 Note: Issue CC in one week B/o v v
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the excess stamp duty and registration fee paid by petitioners should be refunded after dismissal of earlier writ petition.
Petitioners (taxpayers/subscribers)
1st Respondent-District Registrar
2nd Respondent-Sub-Registrar
Ashutosh Mohunta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
