Telangana High Court orders refund of stamp duty after property registration is refused

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Friday ruled that the State government cannot retain stamp duty when the registration of a property is officially refused. The court held that the government cannot keep money for a transaction that was never completed.

The HC division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Ghouse Meera Mohiuddin delivered the judgment in a case involving more than Rs 65 lakh. It observed that retaining such money would be unfair because the sale never became legally valid.

The case arose after Amer Ali Khan of MM Pahadi, Rajendranagar, agreed to purchase a large parcel of land in Shaikpet in 2021. He paid Rs 65,37,500 towards stamp duty and transfer charges to complete the transaction. The sub-registrar refused to register the sale deed because certain legal requirements had not been fulfilled. Khan later sought a refund of the amount. While authorities returned the registration fee, they refused to refund the stamp duty, arguing it had already been used once the document was presented for registration.

The HC single judge had earlier accepted the government’s stand, holding the law did not specifically provide for a refund when registration was refused. The division bench set aside that decision. It held that stamp duty is collected on completed legal transactions. Since the registration was refused, the sale was never completed; ownership of the property never passed to the buyer. As a result, the purpose for which the stamp duty was paid was never achieved.

The bench found the government had relied on internal administrative circulars to reject the refund. It observed that such circulars cannot override the purpose and spirit of the law. The judges pointed out that the Stamp Act contains provisions to protect people when a document becomes useless for the purpose for which it was executed.

The court described the government’s decision to retain such a large amount despite the failed transaction as arbitrary and contrary to the principles of fairness. Allowing the appeal, the HC directed the government to refund the entire amount of stamp duty and transfer charges to the appellant within eight weeks.

The judgment makes it clear that the government cannot retain money for a transaction that never took effect and must act fairly when dealing with citizens whose property registrations are officially refused.

Court asks Endowments dept to re-consider notice on Hanumakonda temple

The HC on Friday directed the Assistant Commissioner (Endowments), Warangal district, to re-consider a notice seeking to bring a Hanumakonda temple under government control, after the its welfare society objected.

Justice Surepalli Nanda heard a writ filed by Sri Laxmi Ganapathi Saraswathi Abhayanjaneya Swamy Temple Welfare Society, represented by its president Sirangi Sunil Kumar. The society challenged a notice issued by the AC on July 15 proposing to register Sri Maha Laxmi Ammavari Temple, also known as the Sri Laxmi Ganapathi Saraswathi Abhayanjaneya Swamy Temple, at FCI Colony, Gopalapuram, under Section 43 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.

The society asked the court to declare the notice illegal and arbitrary, set it aside, and stop authorities from interfering with temple’s management. Pronouncing the order, Justice Nanda noted that the AC had issued the notice to ensure proper administration of the temple. The judge observed that although the temple is not currently registered under the Endowments Act, the AC has the power under Section 43 to register it. The counsel for the department told the court that appropriate orders could be passed in the case.

The court noted that the temple society had already responded to the notice with a detailed explanation, objecting to the temple being brought under the department and asking for the notice to be withdrawn. The society had also submitted signatures of all members supporting this objection.

Since the society had already placed its objections on record, the court disposed of the petition with a direction to the AC to consider the society’s explanation, dated July 23, in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. The court ordered the society be given a personal hearing before a final decision is taken; the decision be communicated within three weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order.