Mr. B. S. Chauhan and Mr. Ramvir Singh, Advs v. THE STATE, GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ANR

e) The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by means of an order dated 07.05.2024, whereby the Collector was directed to consider the application of the appellant seeking refund of the amount of the stamp and decide the same within four weeks. Accordingly, in compliance of the said order dated 07.05.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4589/2024, the respondents refunded the amount of Rs.21,22,000/- towards stamp duty. It may be noted that the entire amount of the e-registration fee, i.e. Rs.3,93,100/- was already refunded to the appellant. Thus, the refund made to the appellant against the value of the stamp purchased by him was made after deducting 10% of the total value. Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.12.2025 17:13:32 LPA 1177/2024 Page 3 of 10 f) The appellant instituted the proceedings of W.P. (C) No.14869/2024 with a prayer to release 10% of the total value of e-stamp along with interest @ 6% per annum for the period commencing on

09.01.2019 and ending on 31.08.2024. Another prayer was also made by the appellant that he be also paid interest @ 6% per annum of the amount paid to him against the e-registration fee of Rs.3,93,136/- for the aforesaid period. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by means of an order dated 23.10.2024, which is under challenge here.

4. Coming to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we may note that the sheet anchor of the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mr. Rajeev Nohwar v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. [(2021) 10 S.C.R. 623]. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that in the case of Rajeev Nohwar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the Collector of Stamps to process the refund and had also held that the appellant therein would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum. It has, thus, been contended that since pursuant to the said judgment, the amount of the entire value of the stamp was paid along with interest @ 6% per annum, the Collector in the instant case has erred in law in deducting 10% of the value of the stamp while processing the prayer for refund of the amount.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that as directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Nohwar (supra), the appellant is entitled to be paid interest @ 6% on refund, both on the value of stamp and the Signature Not Verified LPA 1177/2024 Page 4 of 10 Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.12.2025 17:13:32 e-registration charges, however the Collector of Stamps has declined the same, which aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition. The submission, thus, is that the judgment under appeal herein passed by the learned Single Judge runs contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Nohwar (supra).

6. On the other hand, Ms. Avni Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that so far as the refund of the amount of the stamp along with interest to the appellant is concerned, the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Nohwar(supra) does not have any application for the reason that the said judgment is based on Section 52 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, whereas refund/allowance for stamps not required for use in the State of Delhi is governed by Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. She has also argued that, accordingly, there is no discrepancy either in the order passed by the Collector of Stamps while he has deducted 10% amount of stamp, and has also not acceded to the prayer of payment of interest @ 6% as claimed by the appellant.

7. Having considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge, which is under challenge herein, does not require any interference by this Court in this appeal for the reason that Section 52 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, which is the basis of the judgment in Rajeev Nohwar (supra) though contains similar provision as Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, however the issue of deduction was neither raised nor has been considered in Rajeev Nohwar (supra). Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.12.2025 17:13:32 LPA 1177/2024 Page 5 of 10

8. It is not in dispute that allowance for stamps not required for use in the State of Delhi is governed by the provisions contained in Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which provides that, in a case where stamp purchased by any person has not been spoiled or rendered unfit or useless for the purpose intended, but the purchaser of such stamp intends to deliver the same to the Collector of Stamps for the reason that purchaser does not have immediate use of the stamp, the Collector shall repay the value of such stamp or stamps deducting “ten naye paise for each rupee or portion of a rupee”. Upon the purchaser of the stamp delivering the stamps for being cancelled, such refund is available under Section 54 if it is proved to the Collector’s satisfaction that the stamp was purchased with a bona fide intention to use them and the purchaser has paid the full price for the same and further that the stamps were so purchased within a period of six months next preceding the date on which they are so delivered. (emphasis supplied) 9. Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which will apply to the facts of the present case, runs as under:- “54. Allowance for stamps not required for use. — When any person is possessed of a stamp or stamps which have not been spoiled or rendered unfit or useless for the purpose intended, but for which he has no immediate use, the Collector shall repay to such person the value of such stamp or stamps in money, deducting 1 [ten naye paise] for each rupee or portion of a rupee, upon such person delivering up the same to be cancelled, and proving to the Collector's satisfaction— (a) that such stamp or stamps were purchased by such person with a bona fide intention to use them; and (b) that he has paid the full price thereof; and Signature Not Verified LPA 1177/2024 Page 6 of 10 Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.12.2025 17:13:32 (c) that they were so purchased within the period of six months next preceding the date on which they were so delivered: Provided that, where the person is a licensed vendor of stamps, the Collector may, if he thinks fit, make the repayment of the sum actually paid by the vendor without any such deduction as aforesaid.

10. Section 52 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, is extracted here under: “52. Allowance for stamps not required for use.—When any person is possessed of a stamp or stamps which have not been, spoiled or rendered unfit or useless for the purpose intended, but for which he has no immediate use, the Collector shall repay to such person the value of such stamp or stamps in money, deducting [thereform such amount as may be prescribed by rules made in this behalf by the State Government] upon such person delivering up the same to be cancelled, and proving to the Collector's satisfaction,— (a) that such stamp or stamps were purchased by such person with a bona fide intention to use them; and (b) that he has paid the full price thereof; and (c) that they were so purchased within the period of [one year] next preceding the date on which they were so delivered: Provided that, where the person is a licensed vendor of stamp, the Collector may, if he thinks fit, make the repayment of the sum actually paid by the vendor without any such deduction as aforesaid.”

11. Section 52 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, which is the basis of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Nohwar (supra), however does not contain the phrase “deducting ten naye paise for each rupee or portion of a rupee” otherwise the language used in Section 52 is Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.12.2025 17:13:32 LPA 1177/2024 Page 7 of 10 ad-verbatim the same as the language applied in Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Non-occurrence of the phrase “deducting ten naye paise for each rupee or portion of a rupee” in Section 52 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 makes all the difference and it is because of this reason, we are unable to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant based on the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Nohwar (supra).

12. It is true that Section 52 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, covers the cases where allowance for stamps is to be permitted in respect of stamps, which are not required for use as is the case with Section 54 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and, therefore, we cannot have any quarrel so far as the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Nohwar (supra) is concerned. However, since Section 52 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 does not permit deduction of ten naya paisa for each rupee or portion of a rupee “10%”, rather it permits deduction as per prescription by Rules made by the State Government, whereas Section 54 does permit so, the contention of the appellant based on the said judgment, in the facts of the case, is not acceptable.

13. When, thus, we examine the claim of the appellant seeking refund of the entire amount of the stamp in the light of the above discussion, what we find is that the Collector of Stamps has not erred, as he is empowered to deduct 10% in terms of what has been provided for in Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

14. A perusal of the order passed by learned Single Judge, which is under challenge here reveals that the learned Single Judge has returned a finding Signature Not Verified LPA 1177/2024 Page 8 of 10 Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.12.2025 17:13:32 that deduction of 10% made by the respondent is in consonance with the statutory provisions and in this regard refers to Section 53 (c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Section 53 (c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, however, has no application in the facts of the instant case for the reason that refund was sought by the appellant not for spoiled or misused stamps, but in fact refund was sought as the stamps were not required to be used for the reason that the auction held in favour of the appellant was set aside by the DRT in proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. This mention of Section 53(c) appears to be a clerical error which has crept in the judgement of the learned Single Judge. It is thus a case where Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, will have application. Since Section 54 explicitly permits the Collector of Stamps to deduct 10% amount of the value of the stamp, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge herein.

15. We may also notice that Section 52 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 also permits deduction; however, the said provision does not fix the quantum of deduction, rather it provides that the value of stamp shall be allowed deducting such amount as may be prescribed by the rules made in this behalf by the State Government. Further, the issue raised and decided in Rajeev Nohwar (supra) by Hon’ble Supreme Court was not in respect of permissibility or impermissibility of deduction from the value of stamp, in case, the amount was to be deducted. The issue raised and decided in Rajeev Nohwar (supra) was in relation to the limitation to claim refund. For this reason as well, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the submission Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.12.2025 17:13:32 LPA 1177/2024 Page 9 of 10 made by learned counsel for the appellant regarding the applicability of the law laid down in Rajeev Nohwar (supra) in the facts of the present case.

16. The appeal is, therefore, hereby dismissed.

17. There will be no orders as to costs. (DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA) CHIEF JUSTICE (TUSHAR RAO GEDELA) JUDGE DECEMBER 09, 2025 S.Rawat Signature Not Verified LPA 1177/2024 Page 10 of 10 Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:09.12.2025 17:13:32