ORDER :- This revision is directed against the order dated 1.11.2007 passed in IA No.380 of 2007 in SC No.31 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, whereby, the learned. Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short "the Act") read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Brief facts are that the respondent herein instituted the said suit against the petitioners for recovery of advance amount of Rs.10,000/- paid by her pursuant to an agreement of sale dated 14.12.2002. During the course of trial, the said agreement was marked as an exhibit and at that juncture, the petitioners herein took an objection that the said agreement is inadmissible in evidence as it is not properly stamped. According to the petitioners, as the total consideration is Rs.24,00,000/-, the agreement of sale ought to have been executed on a stamp paper worth Rs.1,20,000/-, but as it was executed on a stamp paper worth Rs.100/- only, it is inadmissible, and that if the respondent requires that agreement to be admitted in evidence, he has to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,19,900/- and penalty. However, the Court below did not accept the said contention and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is filed. 3. Heard Smt. M Suguna, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri D. Seetharami Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 4. The respondent intended to purchase the house bearing D.No.W.13/266 situated at Hospital Road, Gudur, at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per ankanam, and accordingly, the petitioners have executed an agreement of sale in his favour. Later, when it came to the notice of the respondent that the petitioners are entitled to only 1/6th share in the said property and they have sold away the remaining share therein to others, he filed the said suit for refund of the advance amount paid by him. 5. Be that as it may, now the controversy is about payment of stamp duty. Therefore, it is pertinent to refer to Articles 6(A) and 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act. Article 6(B) of the Act came into existence vide G.O. Ms. No.2045 (Reg. 5. Be that as it may, now the controversy is about payment of stamp duty. Therefore, it is pertinent to refer to Articles 6(A) and 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act. Article 6(B) of the Act came into existence vide G.O. Ms. No.2045 (Reg. I) dated 28.11.2005 with effect from 1.12.2005, having regard to the fact that construction activity in the State of A.P., is rampant. If the developer on agreement constructs a building on the land of the owner, there is no transfer of interest in the property in favour of the developer nor agreement constitute an instrument under which any right, title or interest has been transferred from the land owner to the developer and that the land owner continues to be owner of land and construction thereon. In view of the said hectic construction activity, Article 6(B) of the Act was inserted. The very purpose of introducing Article 6(B) of the Act is altogether different. Insofar as the agricultural lands are concerned, they are not covered and only specific items of the property are covered and taken for universal application of the transactions covering immovable property. Apparently, agreement of sale in question is dated 14.12.2002, for which Article 6(A) of Schedule I-A of the Act alone has application. As stated supra, Article 6(8) of Schedule I-A of the Act is applicable in specified cases and insertion of such provision of law cannot override the general provisions of Article 6(A) of Schedule I-A of the Act. 6. No doubt, in the instant case, the property sought to be sold is a dwelling house, but it does not mean that it falls under Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act so as to say that the respondent herein has to pay the stamp duty as per Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act. 7. In the light of the said discussion, this Court is of the view that the Court below has rightly held that the respondent and his suit are governed by Article 6(A), but not governed by Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act. The order impugned needs no interference. 8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.