# Smt.Vineeta Agarwal v. Addl. Commissioner & Ors - **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 1156 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-05-01 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.50962 of 2008 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-vineeta-agarwal-v-addl-commissioner-ors-42589 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Indian Stamp Act 1899-schedule I-B-Art. 34- Stamp duty on correction of sale deedwhether payable?-held-'No'-on execution of sale deed-stamp duty already paid-on certain mistake in number of plotscorrection deed executed paying stamp duty as Rs. 100/-held-only Rs. 10/- payable-demand of extra duty treating fresh document-illegal. Held: Para-9 In view of the above, the aforesaid deed dated 7.2.2006 is a deed of correction and since it was necessitated on account of clerical mistake it would be chargeable to stamp duty under Article 34-A of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and stamp duty of Rs.10/- alone shall be payable on it. The petitioner has already paid a stamp duty of Rs.100/- on the said deed. ## Text 1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 November, 2003 directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman and further directing the petitioner to take work from the workman and pay salary month to month on the due date. The words to "take work" and the words to "pay salary month to month" leads to an irresistible inference, namely, to pay the current salary. It would be too much to expect that the employer will take work and pay last drawn wages. it is not permissible to pay last drawn wages when work is being taken. The workman becomes entitled to be given a fair remuneration and in the opinion of the Court, fair remuneration is nothing else, but current salary since the last drawn wages was being paid, the workman rightly moved an application for payment of minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The said application was maintainable and the Prescribed Authority rightly calculated the difference. The Court is of the opinion that the order of the Prescribed Authority was perfectly justified. 10. However, the Court is of the opinion that awarding penalty was harsh. No mens rea was involved and the petitioner had taken a stand to pay wages as the provision of 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act . In the absence of mens rea, the Court is of the opinion that the imposition of penalty was not correct. Consequently, the award of the Prescribed Authority awarding penalty can not be sustained and to that extent, the order of the Prescribed Authority is liable to be quashed. 11. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order of the Prescribed Authority dated 18th June, 2009 is partly quashed to the extent of imposition of the penalty. The amount towards payment of the balance amount of wages is affirmed, which shall be paid to the workman concerned. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL- SIDE DATED:ALLAHABAD 01.05.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.50962 of 2008 Smt. Vineeta Agarwal ..Petitioner Versus Addl. Commissioner & Ors...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Satish Chaturvedi Sri Ashwani Mishra, Sri R.K. Pandey. Indian Stamp Act 1899-schedule I-B-Art. 34- Stamp duty on correction of sale deedwhether payable?-held-'No'-on execution of sale deed-stamp duty already paid-on certain mistake in number of plotscorrection deed executed paying stamp duty as Rs. 100/-held-only Rs. 10/- payable-demand of extra duty treating fresh document-illegal. Held: Para-9 In view of the above, the aforesaid deed dated 7.2.2006 is a deed of correction and since it was necessitated on account of clerical mistake it would be chargeable to stamp duty under Article 34-A of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and stamp duty of Rs.10/- alone shall be payable on it. The petitioner has already paid a stamp duty of Rs.100/- on the said deed. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for 2 All] Smt.Vineeta Agarwal Vs. Addl. Commissioner & Ors. 1157 respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, counsel for Allahabad Development Authority, respondent No.4. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Allahabad dated 15.2.2008 and the appellate order thereto dated 28.7.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Allahabad Division, Allahabad. 3. Undisputed facts giving rise to this petition are that the Allahabad Development Authority leased out a plot of land in favour of the petitioner in Shantipuram Scheme, Phaphamau, Allahabad and a lease deed in respect of the same was executed on 4.6.2003. However, in the lease deed the plot number was incorrectly mentioned as D396 in place of D-393. Accordingly, a correction deed was executed and got registered on 7.2.2006. The authorities by the impugned orders have determined deficiency in stamp duty on the aforesaid correction deed by treating it to be a fresh lease deed. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by the aforesaid deed dated 7.2.2006 only correction in plot number as appearing in the lease deed has been made and it does not confer any new rights upon the petitioner and, therefore, stamp duty afresh is not payable on the same. 5. The deed dated 7.2.2006 is indisputably an instrument, as argued by the learned Standing Counsel, under Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 but the question is about the nature of the instrument. 6. Since the aforesaid instrument only proposes to correct the plot number and its description which was already leased out in favour of the petitioner and does not confer any new right upon him, it is simply a deed of correction. This fact has also been accepted by the authorities in the impugned orders but they have declined to treat it to be a correction deed only on the ground that the mistake is not of a clerical nature. 7. The mistake in mentioning the plot number in the lease deed is purely a clerical error which has arisen due to inadvertence of the parties, specially the office of the Allahabad Development Authority. The said correction deed does not create any new rights in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner by the said two documents read together only gets right in plot no.D-393 and, therefore, is liable for payment of stamp duty only once. 8. In Writ Petition No.20061 of 2011 C.L.Memorial Girls Post Graduate College Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Administration) and another dated on 16.5.2012, I have already held that a deed of correction to rectify certain clerical mistake arising in the sale deed already registered would not be liable to payment of stamp duty as a fresh sale deed and would be stamped only as a correction deed. 9. In view of the above, the aforesaid deed dated 7.2.2006 is a deed of correction and since it was necessitated on account of clerical mistake it would be chargeable to stamp duty under Article 34-A of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and stamp duty of Rs.10/- alone shall be payable on it. The petitioner has 1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 already paid a stamp duty of Rs.100/- on the said deed. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the authorities below have grossly erred in treating the above deed to be a fresh lease deed and demanding stamp duty accordingly. 11. The impugned orders dated 15.2.2008 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Allahabad and dated 28.7.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Allahabad Division, Allahabad as such are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. In case of any delay in refund of the amount the petitioner shall be entitle to interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the delay period. ---------