IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8899 of 2009 ***** Shyam Kant Sah, S/o Shri Raghunath, resident of village- Bare, P.O.-Dharharwa, P.S.-Parihar, District-Sitamarhi. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Collector, Sitamarhi. 4. The Deputy Collector (Refund), Sitamarhi. 5. The Treasury Officer, Sitamarhi. 6. The Additional Collector, Sitamarhi. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate-IX ------------ 2. 30.7.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector (Refund), Sitamarhi as well as the order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi and the final order dated 20.4.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Case No.19-Misc. Appeal (Stamp Appeal) of 2006. The brief contention is that the petitioner was a bonafide purchaser of non- judicial stamp of value of Rs.13,000/- for registration of a proposed purchase of land. For some unexplained reason since the deal did not go through the petitioner decided to return the stamp and seek refund in terms of Section 54 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899. Petitioner applied for the same within the time frame with the necessary declaration but the - 2 - respondent authorities have gone on a tangent and have finally decided the case, it seems under Section 53 holding that since it is neither a case of being spoiled or misused stamp, therefore, a refund cannot be permitted. Section 54 of the Stamp Act reads as under:- “54. Allowance for stamps not required for use.- When any person is possessed of 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 ten naye paise for each rupee or portion of a rupee, upon such person delivering up the same to be cancelled and providing 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 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.” The provision being very categorical and the findings recorded by the respondent authorities not reflecting the true state of affairs, petitioner has made out a case for interference. All the impugned orders dated 17.12.2005, 21.12.2005 and 20.4.2009 contained in Annexure-3 series and Annexure-5 stand quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector that he shall consider the case of the petitioner in terms and ambit of Section 54 and decide the matter preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order after issuing a notice to the petitioner. - 3 - The writ application stands allowed with above direction. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)