JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava J.:- The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of connected W.P. No. 7448/2007 (Shailendra Shukla Vs. State of District Registrar and others) since both the petitions have been heard analogously. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a direction against the respondents to refund the stamp duty which they have collected on the value of the flat no.10 in Satya Meya Jayate premises. 3. The sole contention which has been put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the notification of the State Government no. 2850-B-6-17-CTD-V-87 is that this notification came into force with effect from 30.5.1992 exempting to pay stamp duty chargeable on instruments of sale to the extent of the value of the house/apartment executed by M.P. Housing Board, Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran and Primary Co-operative Housing Society registered or deemed to be registered under Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the petitioner bought flat in question in the building constructed by the M.P. Housing Board vide registered sale deed dated 19.4.2006 (annexure P/1A=R/1). According to the learned counsel, on the date of sale this notification was in force and, therefore, in all fairness the Sub-Registrar ought to have directed for refund back the stamp duty since the petitioner has been exempted on the basis of the aforesaid notification of the State Government. Hence, it has been prayed that this petition be allowed and the respondents 1 to 3 be directed to refund the stamp duty which has been realized in excess. 4. On the other hand Shri Anubhav Jain, learned panel lawyer for the respondents no.1 to 3 by placing reliance upon Section 2(11) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, the Act of 1899) has submitted that if the words “duly stamped” are considered in its true perspective it would reveal that duty is payable upon the instruments and if that is the position, the action of the respondents by charging the stamp duty upon the sale deed of the petitioner cannot be said to be faulty and, therefore, this petition has no force and the same be dismissed. Learned panel lawyer has placed reliance upon annexure P/2 filed in connected W.P. No. 7448/2007 and submitted that petitioner of that case has prayed that an amount of Rs. Learned panel lawyer has placed reliance upon annexure P/2 filed in connected W.P. No. 7448/2007 and submitted that petitioner of that case has prayed that an amount of Rs. 31,600/- be refunded which is equivalent to 50% of the total stamp duty which the petitioner has deposited at the time of registration of the document. Learned panel lawyer has also invited my attention to para 3 of the return and submitted that this petition be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition as well as connected Writ Petition No. 7448/2007 deserves to be allowed. 6. The authenticity and genuineness of the aforesaid notification no. 2850-B-6-17-CTD-V-87 dated 30.05.1992 has not been disputed in the return nor there is any averment in the return that this notification was lateron superceded and was not in existence when the sale deed was submitted for registration on 19th April, 2006 in this petition and 5th April, 2006 in the connected W.P. No. 7448/2007. Thus, I do not have any scintilla of doubt to hold that this notification was fully applicable in all force when the sale deed (annexure P/1A=R/1) was submitted for registration on 19.4.2006. It would be germane to quote entire notification which reads thus:- “ (60) Notification No. 2850-B-6-617-CTD-V-87 dated 30.05.1992 - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (No. II of 1899), the State Government hereby remits stamp duty chargeable on instruments of sale to the extent of the value of the house/apartment executed by Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran and Primary Co-operative Housing Society, registered or deemed to be registered under Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (No. 17 of 1961), constructed under the self financing scheme, with the money received from the purchaser, from the date of publication of this Notification. On such instruments the stamp duty shall be chargeable only on the value of the total area of the plot with or without building: Provided that the remission under this notification shall not be viable in case of partly constructed house/apartments. On such instruments the stamp duty shall be chargeable only on the value of the total area of the plot with or without building: Provided that the remission under this notification shall not be viable in case of partly constructed house/apartments. [Published in M.P. Rajpatra (Asadharan) dated 30.05.1992 Page 536(3)].” On bare perusal of the aforesaid notification it becomes luminously clear that the State Government has remitted the stamp duty chargeable on the instruments of sale to the extent of the value of the house/apartment executed by M.P. Housing Board, Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran and Primary Co-operative Housing Society registered or deemed to be registered under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 constructed under the self finance scheme with the money received from the purchaser from the date of publication of the notice. Admittedly, the flat which was bought by the petitioner consists of a building of M.P. Housing Board which is also a registered Cooperative Society under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act. There is nothing on record in order to show that the building was not constructed under the self finance scheme with the money received from the purchaser. On the contrary the petitioner has successfully demonstrated that this notification is fully applicable because they bought the flat under the self finance scheme and the purchase money was already received by the Housing Board. In this regard rightly reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon annexure P/4 dated 21.11.2006 which is the certificate issued by the M.P. Housing Board in that regard. 7. Hence to me, the action of the respondents no.1 to 3 realizing the stamp duty of Rs. 62,255/- in this petition and Rs. 63,200/- in connected W.P. No. 7448/2007 is in total contravention to the aforesaid notification. On bare perusal of the aforesaid notification I am of the view that exemption has been given to the extent of the value of the house/apartment. Thus, according to me, the petitioner is liable to pay the stamp duty upon the cost of the land. On bare perusal of the sale deed filed in this petition, this Court finds that the cost of the land has been shown to be Rs. 2,25,912/- while the cost of building has been shown to be Rs. 4,85,888/-. Thus according to me, the petitioner is entitled for the total exemption from the cost of building which is Rs. On bare perusal of the sale deed filed in this petition, this Court finds that the cost of the land has been shown to be Rs. 2,25,912/- while the cost of building has been shown to be Rs. 4,85,888/-. Thus according to me, the petitioner is entitled for the total exemption from the cost of building which is Rs. 4,85,888/- in this petition and Rs. 4,95,888/- in the connected W.P. No. 7448/2007. Thus, the stamp duty is only chargeable upon the cost of the land on valuation is Rs. 2,25,912/- in this petition as well as in the connected writ petition 7448/2007. The petitioner is entitled to get the refund of the stamp duty upon the cost of the building. Let the refund be made on or before 31.10.2013. 8. Ab judicatio this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Let a writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents no.1 to 3 as mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner is also entitled for the costs. Counsel fee Rs. 2000/-, if precertified. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of connected W.P. No. 7448/2007 (Shailendra Shukla Vs. District Registrar and Others).