IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4263 of 2004 BETWEEN: Sri Rajesh Kumar Jain, S/o Jeevraj Jain, R/o 7-1-729, Market Street, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Inspector General (Stamps), Registration & Stamps Department, O/o Inspector General of Regn. & Stamps, 1-7-10, Golconda Cross Roads, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Government of A.P. Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ERANKI PHANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash order, dated 04.09.2003 passed by respondent No.2. Heard Sri E.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner purchased non-judicial stamps worth Rs.25,000/- on 16.04.2002 from the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Marredpally, intending to get a sale deed executed from the owner of the land Sri D.Durga Reddy and got the sale deed typed on the stamp papers on 17.04.2002. He claimed that for personal reasons, he got a separate sale deed executed jointly along with his uncle on stamp papers worth Rs.15,500/-. The petitioner, therefore, applied to respondent No.1 for refund of the stamp duty. The said request was rejected by respondent No.1 vide his order, dated 09.10.2002. The petitioner, however, approached respondent No.2 by separate application, dated 26.02.2003 for the same relief. Respondent No.2 by his order, dated 04.09.2003 rejected the said application. The present writ petition is filed questioning the said order. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that at the time when the petitioner made his application for refund of the stamp duty and respondent No.1 passed order rejecting the said application, the latter was the competent authority to consider and pass an order and that respondent No.2 had no power and jurisdiction in that regard. In view of the same, the order of respondent No.2 is liable to be ignored and the validity of order, dated 09.10.2002 passed by respondent No.1 is required to be considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by respondent No.1 is bereft of reasons and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. I gave serious thought to this submission but to obviate another round of litigation, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and relegate him to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration. Even if the impugned order does not contain the reasons, in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, he came out with reasons. He inter alia stated in his counter-affidavit that the claim of the petitioner for refund of the stamp duty does not fall in any of the limbs of Section 49(d) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’). To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to extract the said provision hereunder: “As per under Section 49(d) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 the stamp used for an instrument executed by any party thereto which – (1) has been afterwards found to be absolutely void in law from the beginning; (2) has been afterwards found unfit, by reason of any error or mistake therein for the purpose originally intended; (3) by reason of the death of any person by whom it is necessary that it should be executed, without having executed the same or of the refusal of any such person to execute the same, cannot be completed so as to effect the intended transaction in the form proposed; (4) for want of the execution thereof by some material party and his inability or refusal to sign the same, is in fact incomplete and insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended; (5) by reason of the refusal of any person to act under the same or to advance any money intended to be thereby secured, or by the refusal or non-acceptance of any office thereby granted, totally fails of the intended purpose; (6) becomes useless in consequence of the transaction intended to be thereby effected being effected by some other instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value; (7) is deficient in value and the transaction intended to be thereby effected has been effected by some other instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value; (8) is inadvertently and undesignedly spoiled, and in lieu whereof another instrument made between the same parties and for the same purpose is executed and duly stamped.” At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s case falls under Section 49(d)(6) of the Act. It is not in dispute that while the stamps purchased by the petitioner are of the value of Rs.25,000/-, the stamps on which subsequent sale deed was executed and registered are worth Rs.15,500/-. Clause 6 of Section 49(d) of the Act applies to cases where the other instrument, which was executed between the same parties bears stamps whose value is not less than the stamps purchased by the party in respect of which refund is sought for. In the face of the undisputed fact that the stamps purchased by the petitioner subsequent to the purchase of stamps in respect of which refund is sought are far less in value than the stamps he had purchased. The petitioner’s case does not fall under Section 49(d)(6) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that if the petitioner’s case does not fall under Section 49(d)(6) of the Act, it does not fall in any other limb of the said provision. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.Nos.5602 of 2004 and 11502 of 2008 filed by the petitioner are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NARAGJUNA REDDY, J 11th June, 2008. kvni