ORDER These two writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner. The petitioner is a construction company. It entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney on 30.7.2007 with M/s. Binjusaria Estate, a partnership firm and two other such agencies for development of property admeasuring 28,396 square yards in Survey No. 194/10 Ward No. 1, Block No. 8 at Begumpet, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The development agreement was registered as Document No. 1789 of 2007. 2. The District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad District, 2nd respondent herein initiated proceedings under Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act') alleging that the development agreement has the effect of conveying title in favour of some of the parties and thereby, the stamp duty payable on a transaction of sale ought to have been paid. Show cause notice dated 13.8.2010 was issued. A joint representation by the petitioner and other parties to the document was submitted on 31.8.2010. Not satisfied with that, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 18.9.2010 taking the view that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,84,26,390/- towards deficit stamp duty. The appeal filed against the same before the 3rd respondent was dismissed on 9.11.2010. WP No. 28639 of 2010 is filed against that order. 3. The petitioner intended to withdraw from the development agreement on account of certain reasons. Accordingly, the parties thereto executed a document named as "Surrender of Development Rights Agreement" on 20.9.2010. The document was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad. Through an endorsement, dated 28.9.2010, the Sub-Registrar informed the petitioner that orders under Section 41-A of the Act were passed for collection of stamp duty and registration charges; that a charge has been created against the property in question and in that view of the matter, the document cannot be registered. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed WP No. 33182 of 2010. 4. The petitioner contends that except that certain reference was made in the development agreement to the arrangement that existed between the persons who offered the property for sale, no conferment of title has taken place under the development agreement. It is urged that the initiation of proceedings under Section 41-A of the Act was totally untenable. Almost same grounds are urged for challenging the order of refusal, dated 28.9.2010 impugned in WP No. 33182 of 2010. 5. It is urged that the initiation of proceedings under Section 41-A of the Act was totally untenable. Almost same grounds are urged for challenging the order of refusal, dated 28.9.2010 impugned in WP No. 33182 of 2010. 5. Counter-affidavits are filed on behalf of the respondents. According to them, there are detailed references in the agreement to the factum of conferment of title on the persons who gave the land for development. It is pleaded that though the document was termed as an agreement, in effect, it was the one through which title was conferred upon the parties to the document. 6. Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 7. A development agreement was executed in respect of the property mentioned above in favour of the petitioner. In the course of narration, the transactions that took place between the various parties, in the context of acquiring rights over the property were mentioned. There is nothing to disclose that one party to the document has conveyed title in respect of the property to the other. Even if there exists any doubt in this regard, the replies given by the petitioner and other recipients of notices clearly show that they did not intend to bring about any transaction of transfer of property through the document. Therefore, whatever may have been the justification for the Registrar to initiate proceedings under Section 41-A of the Act, he ought to have dropped them once the persons concerned stated that they never intended to convey title in respect of the property. Added to that, the document was registered as "Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney". It is not open to the Registrar to brand the document as a sale deed, much less to expand the scope of it. 8. The only reason, on account of which the Sub-Registrar refused to register the "Surrender of Development Rights Agreement" is that an order was passed under Section 41-A of the Act in relation to the development agreement and that charge has been created against the property, for payment of the deficit stamp duty. Once this Court has set aside the order passed under Section 41-A of the Act, the very basis for this ceases to exist. 9. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. 10. Once this Court has set aside the order passed under Section 41-A of the Act, the very basis for this ceases to exist. 9. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. 10. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ petitions also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.