BRIEF OF CASE

Your lordship, the counsel has appeared before the learned senior civil judge in
the matter of DHARAM PAL SINGH v/s COLLECTOR OF STAMPS, for
the refund of stamp duty which was re-paid due to the non- execution of earlier
conveyance deed (perpetual lease deed) dated 3.1.2003 on account of non-
registration.

I would like to bring to your notice that the revisionists was allotted Flat no.
6023/1, Pkt-6B, Sector-D, Vasant kunj, New Delhi by DDA under its Self
Financing Housing Scheme by conveyance deed dated 3.1.2003. Thereafter the
revisionist requested the DDA for return of excess duty paid by him at the rate
of 13% instead of 8% on 7.08.2003. But the DDA have not replied till date. The
reason for this delay is the complacent attitude of the authorities reflected in
their response to Mr. D.P Singh’s visit stating that he should come next month
every time. Further, The DDA authorities have failed to register the
Conveyance Deed dated 3/1/2003 properly on time in spite of the fact that the
same was executed on adequate amount of stamp paper. Owing to this fact the
revisionist had to execute the Conveyance Deed again on 1.5.2015 and it was
registered on the same day as well on the payment of adequate stamp duty of Rs
1,64,600/- with transfer duty of Rs. 63,325/-. It is to be noted that the stamp
duty was paid on the prevalent rate without taking any benefit from the previous
stamp duty paid.

On 3.6.2015 the revisionist applied for refund of stamp duty which was paid in
double due to the negligent behaviour of DDA. Further, on 4.6.2015 the
revisionist requested for clarification regarding non-execution of earlier
Conveyance Deed dated 3.1.2003 at the earliest so that the refund process can
be initiated in the matter without any hindrances. However, the authorities did
not clarified the matter and no refund was made to the revisionist. In pursuance
of the refund, the revisionist again made a request to the collector of stamps
citing no communication from the authorities regarding to the matter.
Thereafter a number of reminders was sent to authorities dated 2.12.2015,
5.1.2016, 17.03.2016, 16.5.2016, 25.10.2016, 14.12.2016 wherein the DDA
claimed that they had already sent a clarification (letter dated 5.6.2016) but it
submitted that no such clarification was received. Thus, the non-execution was
due to the laxity and complacent behaviour of the DDA as is apparent from the
aforementioned facts.

Consequently, the revisionist made a Application regarding the matter to the

learned District Magistrate requesting him to pass an order as he deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. No such order was made.
Thus the revisionist made an application to the Hon’ble LG along with
Divisional Commissioner and District Magistrate dated 24.10.2017 to pass an
appropriate order as he was fed up with the behaviour of the authorities in the
refund of the payment of double stamp duty by him. It is to be noted that the
revisionist is a senior citizen of 66 years facing financial hardships and
aggrieved due to the negligent behaviour on the part of DDA.

An order regarding the matter was passed on 15.11.2017 rejecting the claim of
the revisionist on the ground of it being a spoiled stamp under sec. 49(d)(6) of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. On 23.11.2017 the revisionist replied and made a
humble request to re-think the matter as the learned collector of stamp failed to
appreciate the fact of Non-execution of previous Conveyance deed and the
vague replies along with avoidance tactics regarding clarification of the same.
The revisionist clearly denied the fact that the stamp is spoiled under the said
section as less stamp duty was not paid by the revisionist as was held in the
order. The revisionist paid the stamp duty in full at the prevalent rate without
any benefit from the previous stamp duty. NO such reconsideration was done
by the collector stamps and the revisionist made an application to the Hon’ble
Chief Minister of Delhi and the Hon’ble minister of Revenue/Public health,
dated 9.1.2018 requesting him to pass an order to the concerned authorities for
reconsideration of the matter. Further requests were made to the Divisional
commissioner regarding refund on 29.1.2018, 30.1.2018, 5.2.2018, 9.3.2018
and the Assistant Director of SFS(H) on 12.1.2018. The DDA replied on
1.2.2018 regarding the clarification application dated 30.1.2016 i.e after 2 years
citing non traceability of file in the record as reason for delay in clarification.
This further shows negligence on their part.

Therefore, the counsel has appeared before this Hon’ble Court for the revision
of the order of the collector of stamps dated 15.11.2017 as the revisionist
doesn’t have any other way to recover the stamp duty paid in double. It is
submitted that the revisionist has shown due diligence in the matter while the
authorities have prolonged the matter unnecessarily to the prejudice of the
revisionist who is a senior citizen facing financial hardship.

Thus, it is most respectfully prayed that the learned judge may be pleased to

i) kindly set aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2017 passed by Ms.
Ankita Anand (IAS) Ld. Collector of Stamps; and,
ii) issue direction for the refund of stamp duty of Rs. 1,64,600, or such
other amount as this Hon’ble forum deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.