Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 635 (JHR)

Sujit Kumar Banpar v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-03-16

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER Rajesh Shankar, J. - I.A. No. 7883 of 2017 By way of the present interlocutory application, the petitioner has sought addition of prayer made in the writ petition by claiming refund of additional amount of Rs. 26,700/-, which is said to have been deposited by the deceased wife of the petitioner as stamp duty at the time of presenting the sale deed for registration before the District Sub-Registrar, Medininagar, Palamau (respondent no. 3). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inadvertence, the said claim could not be made in the original writ petition, however the same being the matter of record, the present prayer made in the interlocutory application may be allowed to be added in the main prayer made in the original writ petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the contents of the writ petition as well as the interlocutory application, the addition of prayer sought by the petitioner by claiming refund of additional amount of Rs. 26,700/- which is said to have been deposited by the deceased wife of the petitioner as stamp duty before the respondent no. 3 for registration of the sale deed, is allowed. The claim for refund of Rs. 26,700/- is to be treated as the part of the main prayer made in the original writ petition. I.A. No. 7883 of 2017 stands disposed of. W.P.(C) no. 2586 of 2016 4. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 21463.44 deposited by way of registration fee and Rs. 26700.00 as stamp duty, by the wife of the petitioner for getting the sale deed registered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intended to purchase a piece of land in the name of his wife Pushpa Kumari through registered sale deed for which an amount of Rs. 21463.44 was deposited as registration fee through payment gateway of the Bank of Baroda, Dalognganj Branch being Account no. 38780200000060 on 15.04.2014, for which application ID no. 12331, ref. no. MBBR3318804142, CIN no. 022001715045201471487 was generated. In support of the said fact, the receipt issued by the Registration Department, Jharkhand, Palamau has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Further, an amount of Rs. 38780200000060 on 15.04.2014, for which application ID no. 12331, ref. no. MBBR3318804142, CIN no. 022001715045201471487 was generated. In support of the said fact, the receipt issued by the Registration Department, Jharkhand, Palamau has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Further, an amount of Rs. 26,700/- was deposited by the petitioner as stamp duty in the District Treasury Office, Palamau for registration of the sale deed. It is further stated that on 15.04.2014 itself, all the formalities for execution of the sale deed was completed in the office of the respondent no. 3 vide application no. 12331 dated 15.04.2014. However, unfortunately, the petitioner''s wife fell seriously ill and the registration of the sale deed could not be done. Subsequently, the petitioner''s wife died on 05.05.2014. A copy of the death certificate has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the petitioner filed an application for refund of the aforesaid amount on 23.05.2014 before the District Sub-Registrar, Medininagar, Palamu. It is further submitted that though the amount of Rs. 21463.44, deposited by way of registration fee, has been refunded to the petitioner, but the rest amount i.e. Rs. 26,700/-, deposited as stamp duty, is not being refunded on the pretext of paucity of fund. 6. Learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C) submits that the amount of Rs. 21463.44, deposited by way of registration fee, has already been refunded to the petitioner, but so far as the amount of Rs. 26,700/-, which was deposited as stamp duty, is concerned, the same could not be refunded to the petitioner due to paucity of fund. However, as soon as the fund gets available, the said amount would be refunded to the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record, it appears that the respondents have admitted the claim of the petitioner. The part payment has also been made to the petitioner, but an amount of Rs. 26,700/- deposited by way of stamp duty has not been refunded to the petitioner on the ground of paucity of fund. The refund of Rs. 26,700/- claimed by the petitioner is a meager amount and as such, the respondents cannot take a plea of non-availability of fund for making said refund to the petitioner. Accordingly, the District Sub-Registrar, Medininagar, Palamau-the respondent no. The refund of Rs. 26,700/- claimed by the petitioner is a meager amount and as such, the respondents cannot take a plea of non-availability of fund for making said refund to the petitioner. Accordingly, the District Sub-Registrar, Medininagar, Palamau-the respondent no. 3 is directed to take immediate steps for refund of Rs. 26,700/- to the petitioner on due identification, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.