JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner purchased a plot of the land from Om Prakash vide sale-deed dated 5.12.2003 and paid proper stamp duty thereon. 3. Om Prakash had two plots i.e. 186 and 198 of Khata No. 22. The petitioner had purchased plot No. 198 but in the sale-deed it was wrongly mentioned as plot No. 186. Therefore correction deed (titamma) was executed on 23.6.2009 for substituting the correct plot No. 198 in the sale-deed in place of plot No. 186. 4. On the said deed (titamma) the authorities have demanded deficient stamp duty by treating it to be a fresh sale-deed. 5. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the two orders 22.12.2009 and 21.5.2010 by which the deficiency in stamp duty has been determined and the appeal thereof has been dismissed. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by the deed of correction no new rights have been created and therefore it cannot be regarded as a fresh sale-deed for the purpose of realising stamp duty. 7. On the other hand, the submission of the learned standing counsel is that in case wrong plot number has been mentioned, the proper course open is to execute an exchange deed and to pay stamp duty on it accordingly. 8. In Smt. Vineeta Agarwal v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), 2013(6) ADJ 212 , in a similar controversy regarding incorrect mentioning of a plot and rectification of a deed of correction, I have already held that the mistake in mentioning the correct plot number is purely a clerical error and the correction thereof does not amount to creatimg any new rights in favour of any party. 9. Therefore deed of correction is chargeable to stamp duty at a fixed amount of Rs. 10/- according to Article 34-A of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 10. In view of the above circumstances, there is no necessity for executing an exchange deed and the deed of correction is sufficient to rectify the clerical mistake. 11. In view of the above legal position, I am of the view that as the change of plot number is only on account of bona fide mistake and there is no material to show that the said correction changes the area of the plot, the impugned orders 22.12.2009 and 12.5.2010 are quashed. 12. 11. In view of the above legal position, I am of the view that as the change of plot number is only on account of bona fide mistake and there is no material to show that the said correction changes the area of the plot, the impugned orders 22.12.2009 and 12.5.2010 are quashed. 12. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders shall be refunded to the petitioner within one month from furnishing a certified copy of this order before the authorities concerned. In case of delay in refund, the petitioner shall be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 13. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. ———————