Coming to the aid of two city residents who were charged excess amount of ₹16 lakh for conversion of their residential plots in Sectors 32 and 44 from leasehold to freehold, the court of Chandigarh additional deputy commissioner (ADC) has awarded a complete refund.

In both cases, the sub-registrar’s office was found to had levied stamp duty based on the collector rate instead of conversion charges and surcharge.

The court of ADC Rupesh Kumar Aggarwal directed the sub-registrar’s office to refund ₹10.21 lakh and ₹6.67 lakh, respectively, to complainants Kiran Satija and Kharduman Singh.

Kiran and her husband RC Satija, residents of Sector 32-D, had submitted before the court on February 1, 2021, that the office of the sub-registrar collected stamp duty of ₹10.21 lakh at the time of registration of deed of conveyance on August 19, 2020.

The same day, Kharduman, a resident of Sector 44-A, also submitted an application regarding excess payment of stamp duty of ₹6.67 lakh to the office on March 9, 2020.

Advocate Surinder Kumar Garg, representing the Satija couple, submitted that the sub-registrar asked them to pay ₹10.21 lakh as stamp duty based on a clarification letter issued by the UT finance department on August 7, 2019, which was wrong, illegal and arbitrary, as UT’s conversion policy nowhere stipulates that the conveyance deed is to be registered by paying such a huge stamp duty.

Instead, the consideration amount for this purpose should be the “conversion fee” and surcharge, whichever is applicable, Garg said.

On the other hand, Ravinder Singh, a representative from the sub-registrar office, stated the applicants did not pay the stamp duty as per the prevalent collector rates.

Considering the statements made by both parties and documents placed on record, the court observed that the finance department’s letter, dated August 7, 2019, was merely a clarification letter, which was neither issued under any section/rule nor the same was notified.

Thus, the court observed that an amount of ₹10.21 lakh demanded by the sub-registrar office and paid by applicants on account of extra payment of stamp duty was not justifiable and needed to be refunded.

In the second case also, the court observed that the amount of ₹6.67 lakh paid by the applicant should be refunded.