Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 986 (KAR)

Syndicate Bank v. Government of Karnataka

2015-08-25

A.S.BOPANNA

body2015
ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 25-4-2013 at Annexure-K and also the endorsement dated 1-7-2011 as at Annexure-H to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the request of the petitioner to refund the stamp duty of Rs. 15,73,760/- as also the registration fees amounting to Rs. 2,09,930/- paid on the civic amenity site lease agreement dated 31-7-2007. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed their objection statement which is essentially in line with the reasons indicated in the endorsement dated 25-4-2013 which is impugned herein. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, have perused the petition papers. 4. The facts relating to the allotment of plot having been made by the third respondent to the petitioner-bank with the object of enabling the petitioner to establish its ATM facility for the customers on a civic amenity site is not in dispute. The third respondent at the first instance had allotted site bearing No. 25-A in Hosur-Sarjapur Road, Sector-I, Bengaluru, measuring 4193.75 sq. mts. In that regard, the agreement was entered into between the parties and the same was registered. The stamp duty payable in respect of the sale deed dated 31-7-2007 was in a sum of Rs. 15,73,760/- and the registration fee of Rs. 2,09,930/- was also paid. However, the petitioner admittedly was not in a position to occupy the said plot and put it to use. The reason for which the plot was not available is due to the fact that the same plot was made use of by the BBMP. It is in that light, the third respondent allotted an alternate plot to the petitioner bearing CA Site No. 2 (2-A and 2-B) at Manyatha Promoters, Rachenahalli Layout, Bengaluru. In respect of the said plot, the lease agreement dated 30-12-2010 was once again registered and the stamp duty of Rs. 8,15,700/- and the registration fee of Rs. 1,36,120/- is paid. It is no doubt true that since the plot in Site No. 25-A was not availed, a cancellation deed was also registered in that regard. 5. In respect of the said plot, the lease agreement dated 30-12-2010 was once again registered and the stamp duty of Rs. 8,15,700/- and the registration fee of Rs. 1,36,120/- is paid. It is no doubt true that since the plot in Site No. 25-A was not availed, a cancellation deed was also registered in that regard. 5. In that light, the claim of the petitioner is that though the plot which had been allotted by the third respondent at the first instance had been registered, after payment of stamp duty and the registration fee, the same was not available for the use of the petitioner. An alternate plot was also secured by the petitioner after paying the stamp duty and registration fee for having the document registered. It is in that light, the petitioner filed a petition as at Annexure-J seeking the first respondent to exercise its power and the discretion available under Section 52-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and refund the amount. By the impugned endorsement, the first respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner. 6. A perusal of the endorsement would indicate that the first respondent has merely referred to the three transactions viz. the lease agreement that was registered, the cancellation deed which was executed and the lease-cum-sale agreement registered in respect of the alternate site allotted in the Rachenahalli Layout. If in that light, the endorsement and the objection statement seeking to sustain the same is perused, the consideration of the petition as submitted by the petitioner was not made by the first respondent keeping in view the provision contained in Section 52-A of the Act, wherein the discretion vested with the first respondent is to be exercised even on equitable grounds if the same becomes necessary to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In the instant facts, what cannot be disputed is that the site allotted to the petitioner is for public purpose to provide the facility for the customers in general. It is for that purpose, a civic amenity site was allotted by the third respondent. Though the first allotment was made and the petitioner had paid the stamp duty and the registration fee, the plot was not available to the petitioner to put to use for the purpose for which it was allotted. It is for that purpose, a civic amenity site was allotted by the third respondent. Though the first allotment was made and the petitioner had paid the stamp duty and the registration fee, the plot was not available to the petitioner to put to use for the purpose for which it was allotted. It is in that view, the third respondent taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, an alternate allotment was made. At that point, the petitioner had not sought the adjustment of the stamp duty or the waiver of the same and had paid the stamp duty which was necessary to be paid in respect of the said plot and the registration was completed. In such circumstance, though the plot which was allotted for the second time was the only plot which was available to the petitioner and since the stamp duty and the registration fee of the same was paid once over again, the petitioner has made the petition as at Annexure-J seeking the first respondent to consider this aspect and the stamp duty which was paid at the first instance be refunded to them. 8. If that be the position, while the first respondent exercising its power and discretion under Section 52-A of the Act, consideration is to be made as provided therein and thereafter a decision is to be taken by the first respondent. Since the impugned endorsement does not depict such consideration being made, the endorsements dated 1-7-2011 and 25-4-2013 at Annexure-H and K respectively, are quashed. 9. The first respondent is directed to take note of the petition as filed by the petitioner as at Annexure-J and keep in view the above observations and thereafter take a decision as contemplated under Section 52-A of the Act. 10. To enable such consideration, the petitioner shall now file one more copy of the petition along with the supporting documents with the first respondent. The first respondent shall thereafter reconsider the matter and intimate the result of such consideration to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date on which a copy is furnished. Needless to mention that if the decision taken by the first respondent is in favour of the petitioner, steps thereafter be taken for refund of the amount. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.