The Supreme Court of India has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to refund a sum of Rs. 3,99,100 to a petitioner towards the value of unused non-judicial stamp papers, despite the expiry of the statutory limitation period for such refunds.
The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, passed the order while disposing of a contempt petition filed by Dharmendra Sharma, alleging non-compliance with the Court’s previous judgment dated September 6, 2024.
Background of the Case
The present proceedings arose from the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority, reported in (2025) 1 SCC 422. In that judgment, the Court had directed the Agra Development Authority (ADA) to provide compensation and refund amounts deposited by the appellant. Specifically regarding the stamp papers, the Court had ordered:
“We also order ADA to return the non-judicial stamp worth Rs 3,99,100 back to the appellant.”
Following this order, the petitioner instituted Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 703-704 of 2025, submitting that while the ADA (Respondent No. 1) had complied with directions regarding the refund of the deposit and payment of Rs. 15,00,000 compensation, it had failed to effectively refund the amount for the stamp papers. The petitioner averred that on December 7, 2024, the ADA merely returned the twenty-two original stamp papers through postal communication. By this time, the validity of the stamp papers had expired.
Rejection of Refund Application
Upon receiving the physical stamp papers, the petitioner applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Stamps, Agra, seeking a refund of their value. However, on July 21, 2025, the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Agra, rejected the request.
The rejection order cited the expiration of the limitation period. The officer noted:
“Regarding the refund of physical non-judicial stamp papers, it is regretfully informed that physical non-judicial stamp papers can be refunded within a maximum period of eight years from their date of purchase.”
The order further clarified that under a notification effective from December 20, 2017, the time limit for refund applications was strict. Since approximately 10 years had elapsed since the purchase of the stamps, the authorities held that the right to a refund was “barred by limitation.” Furthermore, the Department took the stance that the Supreme Court’s September 2024 order only directed the ADA to physically return the stamps and did not explicitly direct the Registration Department—which was not a party to the appeal—to refund the value.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner filed the contempt petition. Given the “peculiar factual situation”, the Court permitted the impleadment of the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Collector, Agra, as Respondent No. 2 vide an order dated October 14, 2025.
In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the respondents submitted that the rejection was based on Rule 218 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 (as amended), which proscribes the refund of physical non-judicial stamp papers after eight years.
However, the State “candidly conceded” that the action was taken on a “bona fide interpretation” of the rules. The respondent tendered an unconditional apology and stated that the State “remains duty-bound to implement the directions issued by this Court in the interest of justice.”
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, without entering into the merits of the issues that arose subsequent to the disposal of the original appeals, decided to resolve the matter with a direct order to the State authorities.
The Bench observed:
“Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issues that have subsequently arisen after the disposal of the original civil appeals, we are inclined to dispose of the present contempt petitions by issuing a direction simpliciter to respondent no. 2 to refund a sum of Rs. 3,99,100/-… to the petitioner.”
The Court directed that the refund be made within a period of two months, subject to the petitioner returning the non-judicial stamp papers he received from the ADA. The contempt petitions against the Agra Development Authority were closed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Dharmendra Sharma v. M. Arunmozhi & Anr.
- Case Number: Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 703-704 of 2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2809-2810 of 2024
- Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Counsel for Petitioner: Shri Vipin Sanghi, Senior Advocate
