P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the Government Pleader and also Sri Vilas V. AFzulpurkar, the learned Counsel representing the respective parties. ( 2 ) THE revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner as against the order dated 13-10-1998 made in CMA No. 235 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that the 1st respondent entered into an agreement of sale dated 19-11-1984, which is a registered agreement of sale. As per the proceedings of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling dated 2-12-1992 several structures were noted to be in existence even on the date of agreement of sale and the 1st respondent presented the document for registration on 19-8-1993 at the Sub-Registrar, Vallabhnagar. The 1st revision petitioner had inspected the land on 20-7-1995 and assessed a particular market value and accordingly had assessed the stamp duty and registration fee to be payable and it was detected that there is deficit and therefore he came to the conclusion that the document is under valued and referred the same to Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (for short the Act ) for adjudication and on receipt of reference and in view of the representation filed by the purchasers of the inspected land and taking into consideration the structures that existed on the date of agreement of sale, the Collector had fixed the market value as on the date of execution of the sale deed and after assessment the market value, he had directed the payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs. 9,94,720/- and deposit TPT of Rs. 6,15,475/- and aggrieved by the said order of the Collector, the 1st respondent filed CMA 235 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad who allowed the same on 13-10-1998 and ordered the registering authority to register the document and hand over the same to the purchasers. As against the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the respondents in CMA No. 235 of 1995. As against the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the respondents in CMA No. 235 of 1995. ( 4 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for Arbitration had taken me thorough the material available on record and had contended that the sale deed is a conveyance and in Section 47-A sub-section (6) of the Act, the words on the date of execution of the instrument assume importance and the learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to Rules 9 and 12 of the A. P. Stamp (Prevention of under-valuation of Instrument) Rules, 1975. The learned Counsel also had brought to my notice that this is also a matter where a suit for specific performance was filed in OS No. 1278 of 1990 on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, which was decreed on compromise in 1993 and the sale deed is dated 17-4-1995. Learned Counsel had contended that in Siddula Madhukar v. Govt. of A. P. , 2001 (3) ALD 317 , it was held that stamp duty to be paid on a sale deed executed in pursuance of a decree for specific performance, relevant date for determining the stamp duty payable is the date of the sale deed but not the date of agreement of sale on which the suit is filed and decreed. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Vilas V. Afzulpurkar representing the respondents had contended that the agreement of sale itself is a registered document and under section 47 A of the Act a reference can be made only when the party is satisfied that the subject-matter of such instrument has not been truly set-forth in the instrument and absolutely there is no material for the parties to arrive al a different conclusion since even at the stage of agreement of sale, it is a registered document and clause 1 of the agreement of sale refers to the sale consideration and clause 4 of the said agreement of sale refers to the delivery of possession. Learned Counsel had also drawn my attention to para 8 of the impugned order and also the order made in WP No. 1504 of 1994. Learned Counsel had also drawn my attention to para 8 of the impugned order and also the order made in WP No. 1504 of 1994. Learned Counsel also had submitted that even the Income Tax authorities had examined the value and they were satisfied and hence the revision petitioner now cannot contend that the subject-matter of the instrument is not truly set-forth the market value. Learned Counsel also had submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case absolutely there is no reason to believe that the market value of the property, which is subject-matter of such instrument, has not been truly set-forth in the instrument. Learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to Article 20 and Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Act. Learned Counsel had placed strong reliance in K. Sivaramaiah v. Special Deputy Collector, 1989 (1) ALT 546, wherein the object of 47-A of the Act had been explained. Learned Counsel had relied on a decision in Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad v. M. Damodar Reddy, 1997 (3) ALD 325 , to the effect that the market value of the property cannot be decided on the sole basis of entries in the basic value register. ( 6 ) FOR better appreciation of the controversy involved in the present matter, it may be appropriate to look into the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act dealing with the instruments of conveyance etc. , under valued how to be dealt with and the said provision reads as follows : "instruments of conveyance, etc. , under valued how to be dealt with:- 1. Where the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift partition "settlement or release" reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument "he may, keep pending such instrument and refer the matter to the Collector for determination of market value of such property and proper duty payable thereon". 2. On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties opportunity of making their representation and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and the duty as aforesaid. 2. On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties opportunity of making their representation and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. 3. The Collector may suo motu within two years from the date of registration of such instrument, not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and the duty payable thereon and if, after such examination, he has reason to believe that market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value of such property, and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (2 ). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty: provided that nothing in this sub-section, shall apply to any instrument registered before the date of commencement of the Indian stamp (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1971. 4. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) may appeal to the appellate authority specified in sub-section (5 ). All such appeals shall be preferred within such time and shall be heard and disposed of in such manner, as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act. 5. The appellate authority shall be (i) in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, the City Civil Court. (ii) elsewhere (a) The Subordinate Judge or if there are more than one Subordinate Judge, the Principal Subordinate Judge, having jurisdiction over the area in which the property concerned is situated; or (b) If there is no such Subordinate Judge, the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area aforesaid. 6. (ii) elsewhere (a) The Subordinate Judge or if there are more than one Subordinate Judge, the Principal Subordinate Judge, having jurisdiction over the area in which the property concerned is situated; or (b) If there is no such Subordinate Judge, the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area aforesaid. 6. For the purposes of this Act, market value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Collector or the appellate authority, as the case may be, such property would have fetched or would fetched if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, partition or settlement. ( 7 ) RULE 12 of A. P. Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as rules for the purpose of convenience) dealing with order in appeal reads as follows: "order in appeal: (1) After considering all the evidence adduced and representation made on behalf of the appellant and the Collector and examining the records of the case, the appellate authority shall decide whether or not the market value of the properties or the consideration thereof, as determined by the Collector under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 47-A is correct. In case the appellate authority does not accept the valuation of the properties or the consideration determined by the Collector, it shall determine the correct market value of the properties or the consideration and the duty payable on the instrument. The appellate authority shall embody its decision and the reasons therefor in an order and communicate it to the appellant, the Collector and the registering officer concerned. The appellate authority shall embody its decision and the reasons therefor in an order and communicate it to the appellant, the Collector and the registering officer concerned. (2) After receipt of the orders issued by the appellate authority under sub-section (2) of Section 47-A, if the parties fail to pay deficit stamp duty if any or if such deficit stamp duty is not recovered by coercive process under Section 48, the Registering Officer shall destroy the document after 5 years from the date of the orders of the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 47-A. (3) If any officer by conducting spot inspection or otherwise detects that a document is under-valued and reports to the Collector with his assessment of the value of the property affected by the document within 2 years from the date of registration of such document, the Collector shall exercise his powers under sub-section (3) of Section 47-A". ( 8 ) ARTICLE 20 of Schedule I-A of the ndian Stamp Act deals with conveyance ind the proviso reads as follows: "provided that where an agreement to sell an immovable property is stamped with ad valorem stamp required for a conveyance on sale under Article 47-A and a conveyance on sale in pursuance of such agreement is subsequently executed, the duty on such conveyance on sale shall be the duty payable under the Article less the duty already paid under Article 47-A subject to a minimum of five rupees". ( 9 ) SECTION 2 (10) of the Indian Stamp Act defines conveyance as follows:- Conveyance1 includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether movable or immovable, is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I or by Schedule I-A as the case may be", ( 10 ) ARTICLE 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act deals with sale as defined in Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the explanation to Article 47-A specifies as follows: "an agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable as a sale under this Article and the instrument of sale in pursuance of such agreement subsequently executed shall be chargeable with a duty of rupees five". ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel representing the respondents in the light of these provisions in the Indian Stamp Act had made an attempt to equate an agreement of sale. No doubt, in the present matter, a registered agreement of sale with a recital of delivery of possession is also a regular sale deed even for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. Learned Counsel for the respondents in support of his contention had placed reliance on Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad v. M. Damodar Reddy, 1997 (3) ALD 325 , K. Sivaramaiah v. Special Deputy Collector, 1989 (1) ALT 546, N. Ranga Reddy v. Govt. of A. P. , 1987 (1) APLJ 131 , M/s. Sagar Cements Ltd. v. State ofa. P. , 1989 (3) ALT 677 , Bhartia Pulversiers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sub-Registrar of Assurances, 1999 (1) ALD 186, Swamy Talkies v. Sub-Registrar of Assurance, 1997 (1) ALD 779 and Vidyanagar Housing Co-op. Society Ltd v. State ofa. P. , 1995 (1) ALT 620 . The writ petition referred to by the learned Counsel for respondents in WP No. 1504 of 1994 was disposed of by just quashing the notice issued by the Sub-Registrar with a direction to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules after giving notice to the petitioners therein and if he comes to the conclusion that he has reasonable belief that the property is under valued, he may forward Form No. 1 to the Collector and the Sub-Registrar shall decide whether to refer the matter to the Collector or not within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and the Collector shall pass order as required under Rule 7 of the Rules within two months from the date of receipt of Form No. 1. The appellate authority while disposing of the several CMAs including CMA No. 235 of 1995, at para-10 observed as follows:- "it is not the case of the registering authority that the documents were under valued as on the date of the execution of the agreements of sale. They are only demanding to purchase to pay stamp duty and registration charges on the present market value. They are not entitled to do so in view of the law laid down by our High Court in the above quoted decision". They are only demanding to purchase to pay stamp duty and registration charges on the present market value. They are not entitled to do so in view of the law laid down by our High Court in the above quoted decision". ( 12 ) IT is pertinent to note that in Siddula Madhukar s case, the Division Bench of this Court at page 322 had specifically observed as follows: "there cannot be any doubt that the tax impose is to be calculated on the basis of the rate when the instrument itself is executed. Such an instrument, for the purpose of registration or otherwise in terms of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act cannot relate back to the date of execution of an agreement for sale. It is now well settled principle of law that there cannot be any intendment in relation to a tax. Only because in relation to such an agreement for sale a suit for specific performance of contract had to be filed and a decree was passed is no ground to hold that in such a case the duty payable would be calculated at the rate which was prevailing at the time of execution of the agreement for sale and not at the rate which was prevailing at the date of execution. The statute does not say so. In our considered opinion by reason of an interpretation thereof, no meaning can be attributed which is beyond the scope and purport of the statutory provisions". ( 13 ) IN the present case also, in pursuance of the registered agreement of sale, a suit was instituted for specific performance and no doubt subsequently, a registered sale deed was executed and merely because the agreement of sale is a registered document with a recital of delivery of possession, it cannot be said that it may be equated with a sale deed for the purpose of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Further, merely because some permission has been accorded by the Income-tax authorities, in all cases it cannot be said that such sale consideration specified in the agreement of sale can be taken as true market value and even otherwise, merely because an agreement of sale was executed, it is not possible to hold in such case, that the duty payable has to be calculated at the rate prevailing at the time of execution of agreement of sale and not at the rate prevailing at the time of execution of sale deed. The recitals in a registered agreement of sale and also definition of conveyance , Article 20 and Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, in my considered opinion cannot alter the situation in any manner, As far as Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is concerned, in Section 47-A sub-section (1) the words used are ". . . . while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, partition settlement or release " and further, the following words in sub-section (1) are also relevant: ". . . . . . reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument". ( 14 ) THESE expressions clearly go to show that what is essential is that the instrument must fall under conveyance and at any stretch of imagination, a mere agreement of sale whether it is registered or unregistered will not fall within the expression conveyance and hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents in this regard, in my considered opinion, is not sustainable in law. Further, in Section 47-A, sub-section (6), the words used are ". . . . . . . such property would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, partition or settlement". The above expressions used both in sub-sections (1) and (6) of Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act virtually make me to arrive at a conclusion that for the purpose of under-valuation under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, the date of instrument should be the date of instrument as such, be that conveyance or any other documents referred to in the provision and not any other transaction like an agreement of sale. ( 15 ) APART from all these, I am also of the opinion that the impugned order made by the appellate authority is not in accordance with Rule 12 of the Rules. It is no doubt true that a serious attempt was made by the iearned Counsel for the respondents to attack the very purpose itself as bad in law. However, it is pertinent to note that except narrating all the decisions and making a cryptic order without detailed discussion, the appellate authority had not appreciated all the details relating to the market value arrived at and the additional stamp duty levied in this regard. Thus, the impugned order is also bad in law for contravention of Rule 12 of the Rules and also for want of appreciation of the factual details relevant for deciding the matter. Examined the matter in any angle, the impugned order, in my considered opinion, is not sustainable in law and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside since none of the factual aspects had been discussed at all and in the light of the observations specified supra, the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for the purpose of deciding and matter afresh keeping in view the observations made above. ( 16 ) THE civil revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.