TTOT •^•w'^"s3'yi- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT-OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) o^ •2S- WRIT PETITION (227) N0. VS^ OF 20?b (S.& PETITIONER APPLICANT RESPQNDENTS ^\"?y "3€ <y / Mukesh Kuniar Chouksey S/o Dayal J>- Chouksey, aged about^~(>years, R/o Behkid Gujrati Samaj, Tikrapara, Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS /\. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Registrar (Registration), Raipur (C.G.). ^2. The Inspecfor General, Registration and Superintendent ofStamp, Stateof Chhattisgarh, Raipur and ChiefRevehue Controlling Authority, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OPTHE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARHAT BIIASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 214 of2011 ^ PETITIONER : Mukesh Kumar Chouksey Versus RESPONDENTS : TheStateofChhattisgarh&Another WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OP THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal, J.) Present : Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner; Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer forlfae State. ORALORDER (Passedon 25.01J011) 1. LegalityandproprietyoftheordCTdated 31.12.2009 (AnnexureP/3) passed by the Inspector General aad Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, whereby the petitioner's application filed under Section 45 ofthe Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act') has been rejected, is under assail in the instaat petition. 2. Brief facts as projected by tiie petitioner is that the petitioner purchased Nazul land eomprised in Nazul Sheet No. 39/1, Plot No. 1/32, Area 2000 Sq. f., situated in Ward No. 31, Indira Nagar, Juna Bilaspur, vide registered sale deed dated 24.11.2005 from Ravind Narayan Singh and others by wrongly afBxing stamp duty of Rs. 3,33,300/-, assuming the said land as commercial land, and therefore, he filed an objection under Section 45 of the Aet for refand ofexcess stamp duty paid by him. ^ Sahu 3. The said application was dismissed by the respondent No. 2 vide order impugned dated 31.12.2009 (Annexure P/3). 4. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitione? and perusedthe order impugned. 5. As per Section 45 ofthe Acl, where any penalty is made under section 35 or section 40, or where in the opinion of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority stamp-duty in excess ofthatwhich is legally chargeable has been eharged mid paid underSection 35 or section 40, such authority may, upon applicatioa in writing made within three months of the order charging the same, refund the excess. 6. Undisputedly, in this case, the petitioner has not paid any amount as penalty undersection 35 or section 40 nor has paid any stamp duty in excess of that which is legally chargeable under section 35 or section 40 ofthe Act, and therefore, the provisiQns ofSection 45 of the Act has no application m theinstant case. 7. The petitioner eould not point out any other provisions in the Act which may help him. 8. In view of above, I do not find any substance in the petition. The petition being devoid pf substence is Uable to be and is hereby dismissed. ——- Sd//- N.K.AgrawaI Judge i| iniffKiiiieBfijiiHi'HiB'is