- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50791 WP No. 35700 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35700 OF 2025 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: 1. MR VISHAL AROARA S/O MR TILAK RAJ AROARA AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS BLOCK B, G-8 SRIVEN SPLENDOUR HANUMAN TEMPLE ROAD BEHIND EGL, CHALLAGHATTA BENGALURU 560037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION MS BUILDING BENGALURU 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS/ DISTRICT REGISTRAR SHIVAJINAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT 4TH FLOOR, NO.122/2, MONARCH CHAMBERS INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50791 WP No. 35700 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT QUASHING ENDORSEMENT NO. DRO/SJN/RFD/287/2025-26/1596 DTD 12.11.2025 ISSUED BY R-2 (ANNX-A) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents. 2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ/order/direction quashing Endorsement No.DRO/SJN/RFD/287/2056-26/1596 dated 12.11.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 (Annexure-A). ii. Consequently, Issue a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the 2nd Respondent to refund the amount of Rs.82,000/- towards E- Stamp Certificate No.IN-KA86585792151938X dated 05.11.2025 (Annexure-C). iii. Pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity." 3. The petitioner had purchased a stamp paper for a sum of Rs.82,000/- for execution of an Agreement of sale - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50791 WP No. 35700 of 2025 between the petitioner and his wife on the one hand and the seller Smt. Nusrath Unisa on the other. The petitioner made an application in the form of an affidavit on the very same E-Stamp paper seeking for refund of the stamp duty on the ground that the stamp paper was not being used for the purpose that it was obtained. The said request of the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondents on the ground that an affidavit has been printed on the E-Stamp paper and borne the signature of the petitioner and as such, there being an execution of a document namely the affidavit, the same would come under the mischief of Section 47(1)(b) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and as such, the refund could not be made. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. A perusal of Annexure-C which is the concerned stamp paper would indicate that the stamp duty is calculated under Article 5(e)(ii) for an agreement or a record of MOA for sale of immovable property namely an Agreement of Sale. The consideration being indicated to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50791 WP No. 35700 of 2025 Rs.1,64,00,000/-, a stamp duty amount is calculated at Rs.82,000/-. 5. A perusal of the document indicates that it is not an Agreement of Sale which has been printed on the said stamp paper, but it is an affidavit which has been printed and signed by the petitioner and the affidavit in fact is a request made for refund of the face value of the E-Stamp paper. There is no other agreement or no other document which has been printed on the said E-Stamp paper which would result in any agreement or arrangement between any parties. The affidavit is only a request made for refund of the face value of the E-stamp paper on account of the said stamp paper not being used. In fact, the said affidavit on the original E-stamp paper has been furnished to the respondents. 6. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the contention of the respondents that a document has been executed and therefore, the refund could not be made cannot be accepted in as much as the petitioner and his wife had purchased one another stamp paper on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50791 WP No. 35700 of 2025 the very same date at a subsequent time by indicating the name of the seller and the Agreement of Sale had been executed as regards to which the very same sum of Rs.82,000/- had been paid in terms of Annexure-B. Thus, I do not find any reason as to why the respondents could have denied the refund of the stamp duty paid by the petitioner. 7. A perusal of Annexure-C indicating that the stamp paper was purchased by the petitioner, it would be required for the respondents to refund the amount to the petitioner though the name of his wife is also mentioned in the said document. As such, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) A certiorari is issued and the Endorsement bearing No.DRO/SJN/RFD/287/2025-26/1596 dated 12.11.2025 Issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A is quashed. iii) A mandamus is issued, respondent No.2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.82,000/- towards the unused E-Stamp Certificate No.IN- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50791 WP No. 35700 of 2025 KA86585792151938X dated 05.11.2025 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16