JUDGMENT K.MANMADHA RAO, J. - This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dtd. 10/11/2016, in C.M.A.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, to set aside the order dtd. 21/4/2008 and direct the 1st petitioner/ 1st respondent to release the document dtd. 11/11/2022 in the name of the respondent/ appellant presented in the registration after effecting the registration. 2. The respondent herein has filed a representation No. G2/47-A/169/2003 r/w letter M.V.4/2098/2008, dtd. 21/4/2008 before the District Registrar, Machilipatnam and the same was rejected by its order dtd. 21/4/2008. Assailing the C.M.A.No.4 of 2009 has been filed before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada contending that the 1st respondent herein ought to have seen that the documents presented for registration is only 3.04 1/2 cents of wet land situated at Pamarru Village and on the date of presentation of the document for registration on 11/11/2002 the value of the said land is Rs.94,000.00per acre, which comes to Rs.2,86,200.00, but the 1st respondent holding that the revenue levied on vacate site construction. The entire land is situated in one block and it is a cultivable land, but the 1st respondent erroneously hold that bifurcating the land into two parts and assessed the value per squire yard at Rs.170.00 and assessed the stamp duty at Rs.20,94,026.00, which is illegal and arbitrary. 3. The contention of the 1st respondent before the court below that the 2nd respondent personally inspected the said land by that time, it was vacant land without any crops therein and it was divided into two blocks. After considering the records and field inspection report, they came to a conclusion that the above said land is not an agricultural land, it is a vacant land, which is useful for house sites and fixed the value at Rs.170.00 per sq.yds. Therefore assessed the stamp duty at Rs.20,94,026.00. 4. The court below after hearing on both sides, came to a conclusion that the land in R.S.No.768/4 is an agricultural land, but not house site. As such the court below set aside the order passed by the learned District Registrar dtd. 30/6/2003 and Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh dtd. 21/4/2008. Assailing the same, the present Revisions came to be filed. 5. As such the court below set aside the order passed by the learned District Registrar dtd. 30/6/2003 and Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh dtd. 21/4/2008. Assailing the same, the present Revisions came to be filed. 5. Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration for the petitioners and Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that the court below without appreciating the facts and circumstances on behalf of the petitioners straight away set aside the order passed by the petitioners, which is highly untenable and not reasonable. The order dtd. 10/11/2016 passed by the court below is nothing but reducing power conferred under Sec. 47 of Stamp Act on registering authorities to purely ministerial act and also causing loss the public exchequers. The court below can take into all relevant material including rate shown in basic value register and also the place in which the property is situated etc., to fix market value. The court below failed to consider the Field Inspection report, which reveals that the subject land is forming single unit and bounded on one side by a country road, which leads to the houses located at a distance of half kilometer. Therefore prays to set aside the impugned orders of the court below. 7. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the contentions urged in the C.M.A and vehemently opposed to allow the revision. Therefore, requested to dismiss the revision. 8. Perused the record. 9. As could be seen from the proceedings of the 1st petitioner herein vide No. G2/47-A/169/2003, dtd. 30/6/2003, it is categorically stated that the pass book issued by the Revenue authorities the land in R.S.No.768/4 is shown as Magani. But in the Basic register the very same survey number is further subdivided into 768/4A to 4F, which covered by a document P.62/2002 and the said land is not useful for house site purpose. Whereas it is quite contra to the above statement, the said land is not an agricultural land, it is a vacant land, which is useful for house sites as per Field Inspection Report by the petitioners herein. It is evident that the Deputy Inspector of Survey of RDO Office, Gudivada conducted a survey on 16/1/2004 and submitted his report i.e Ex.A3 dtd. It is evident that the Deputy Inspector of Survey of RDO Office, Gudivada conducted a survey on 16/1/2004 and submitted his report i.e Ex.A3 dtd. 16/1/2004, wherein it was stated that the land purchased by the appellant is in R.S.No.768/4F and it is no way related to the R.S.No.768/4A to E and by the date of inspection, there was a paddy crop existed therein, which purchased by the respondent herein. 10. It is apparent on the face of the record that there is abnormal value assessed by the petitioners in registering the document that was presented by the respondent. The court below has rightly scrutinized the issues in right perspective. Therefore, this Court finds no irregularity or impropriety in the order of the court below and warrants no interference of this Court. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, the C.R.P is dismissed, while directing the petitioners herein to collect the stamp duty in respect of the property covered under sale deed dtd. 11/11/2002, which presented by the respondent herein and release the same to him, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.