THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos:7587 & 7602 of 2008 DATED:14-02-2011 Between: T.D.Neelima & another. ..... PETITIONERS And The Commissioner for Cooperation & Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad & 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS COMMON ORDER: The issue being the same in both the Writ Petitions, they are amenable to disposal by way of this common order. 2. Petitioners are sisters. They entered into separate transactions under two individual sale deeds with Kavali Yellaiah and Mohammed Shaik Mahmood for purchase of two plots in Sy.Nos.81 and 82 of Mansoorabad village, Saroornagar mandal, Rangareddy District. The vendors were represented by their GPA holder-G.Jangaiah. The registration of the sale deeds could not be completed owing to the death of the GPA holder. The documents were however kept pending as P-86 and P-87 of 2007. 3. Pertinent to note, the petitioners paid the stamp duty and registration charges in respect of these two sale deeds amounting to Rs.56,900/- each in May, 2007 itself. According to the petitioners, the registration authorities informed them that the documents could not be registered owing to the death of the executant, the GPA holder of the vendors. When the petitioners requested refund of the amounts paid by them, the registration authorities allegedly refused on the ground that once the amount was paid to the Government it could not be returned. Petitioners claim to have made representation dated 25-10-2007 seeking refund of the amounts paid by them towards registration charges and stamp duty. Aggrieved by the continued inaction on the part of the authorities, they filed the present Writ Petitions. 4. In his counter, the Sub-Registrar, Saroornagar, Rangareddy District, admitted the facts aforestated. He however stated that the petitioners themselves requested for return of the unregistered documents as the whereabouts of the vendors were not known. Insofar as the issue of refund of the stamp duty and registration charges is concerned, reliance was placed upon G.O.Ms.No.222, Revenue (Registration-I) department, dated 19-02-2005, whereby the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar were empowered to sanction refund of the stamp duty, subject to the condition that the validity of the challan for getting the refund would be four months from the date of payment. The Sub-Registrar, Saroornagar, therefore stated that as the petitioners had remitted the amounts under challans dated 15-05-2007 and the prescribed period of four months had expired on 14-09-2007, they were not entitled to get any refund thereafter. 5. Sri D.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that the aforestated stipulation as to limitation contained in G.O.Ms.No.222 dated 19-02-2005 could not be made applicable to the cases on hand as the documents were not returned immediately and were kept pending. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners were themselves at fault for the delay in seeking return of the documents and therefore, they could not escape the rigor of G.O.Ms.No.222 dated 19-02-2005. 7. The copies of the returned documents produced for the perusal of the Court reflect that the Sub-Registrar, Saroornagar, by undated endorsement captioned ‘Certificate’ stated that the document, on the request of the claimant, was returned unregistered. Clause 6 of the ‘Terms and Conditions for Refund of Stamp Duty’ in G.O.Ms.No.222 dated 19-02-2005 states to the effect that validity period of the challan should be restricted to four months only from the date of payment to avoid public hardship, litigation and administrative problems in recondition, verification of old challans etc. Clause 7 however makes it clear that in respect of registration fee and user charges for services not rendered, the total amount is refundable by the District Registrar concerned as per R.R.185. 8. Given the fact that the subject-sale transactions did not fructify and the sale deeds presented by the petitioners for registration could not be processed to their logical end due to the death of the G.P.A.holder of the vendors, the issue presently is whether the State is entitled to retain the monies of the petitioners though it did not provide them any service. For refund of stamp duty, G.O.Ms.No.222 dated 19-02-2005 seeks to restrict the validity period of the challans to a period of four months. However, it is to be noticed that in the present cases, the documents were not rejected outright upon presentation and were admittedly kept pending. As per the petitioners’ account the documents were returned only on 25-10-2007. That being so, the occasion for the petitioners to seek refund of the stamp duty and registration charges did not arise prior to the date of their documents being returned. The cause of action for the petitioners to seek refund of the amounts paid thus arose only upon the return of the documents in October, 2007. Admittedly, there is no delay on their part in seeking refund if this date is taken into reckoning. In that view of the matter, G.O.Ms.No.222 dated 19-02-2005 cannot be pressed into service by the State in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 9. In any event, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be fit and proper for the State to retain the monies paid by the petitioners for the purpose of registration of the sale deeds once the same did not materialize. In its wisdom, the State prescribed a limitation period of four months for refund but such limitation can be applied only upon return of the documents forthwith. That not being the case in the present Writ Petitions, the reliance placed by the State upon this limitation aspect to negate the petitioners’ claim cannot be countenanced. 10. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed, directing the respondents to refund the amounts paid by the petitioners towards the stamp duty, registration and user charges for the documents bearing Nos.P-86 and P-87 of 2007 within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 14th February, 2011. Tsy