Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 783 (TS)

Syed Tajuddin v. State of Telangana

2023-12-20

N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in fixing the stamp duty of Rs.1, 24, 950.00 with a penalty upto 10 times on unregistered Agreement of Sale dtd. 17/9/2020 under proceedings Lr.No.IMP/2202/2023 dtd. 24/11/2023 as illegal and arbitrary and also against Article 6 of Schedule 1 - A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by Telangana State and consequently direct respondent No.3 to fix the stamp duty on unregistered Agreement of Sale dtd. 17/9/2020 as per Article 6 of Schedule 1 - A of the Indian Stamp Act. 2. The petitioner submits that he has filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 2023 for specific performance on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar against one K.Chenna Reddy and another. In the said suit, the SubRegistrar is defendant No.2. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar while issuing urgent notice in I.A.No.339 of 2023 in O.S.No.28 of 2023 has granted an ad-interim exparte injunction restraining respondent No.1 therein not to create any third party interest in respect of the suit schedule properties, which was extended from time to time till 19/12/2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stay was extended till 2/1/2024. However, a copy of the same has not been placed before this Court. It is submitted that while hearing I.A.No.339 of 2023 in O.S.No.28 of 2023 learned IV Additional District Judge found that the agreement of sale dtd. 17/9/2020 was executed on insufficient stamp paper for which deficit stamp duty is liable to be collected. Accordingly, same was sent to respondent No.3 for collection of stamp duty. It is submitted that respondent No.3 fixed the stamp duty on unregistered sale agreement vide DIS No.417 of 2023 wherein stamp duty has worked out to Rs.1, 25, 000.00 for which agreement of sale was executed, after deducting Rs.50.00, fixed the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1, 24, 950.00 and penalty upto 10 times vide Lr.No.IMP/2202/2023 dtd. 24/11/2023 which was sent to IV Additional Disrict Judge, Mahabubnagar. In the said letter, respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to appear before him for payment of stamp duty and penalty fixed by him. 4. 24/11/2023 which was sent to IV Additional Disrict Judge, Mahabubnagar. In the said letter, respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to appear before him for payment of stamp duty and penalty fixed by him. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that proceedings issued by respondent No.3 is not in accordance with the Schedule 1-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1989 as amended by Telangana State and collecting stamp duty of Rs.1, 24, 950.00 with 10 times penalty is without any basis. It is further submitted that IV Additional District Judge insisted petitioner to pay Rs.1, 24, 950.00 along with 10 times penalty else the order would be vacated. 5. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned with a condition that if the stamp duty is not paid interim order would be vacated and now learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is posted on 2/1/2024 and interim orders are still subsisting. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn attention of this Court to Article 6-A Schedule I-A of stamp duty which is extracted herein: "Agreement or memorandum of an Agreement not otherwise provided for: (A) Where the value-- (i) does not exceed Rs.5, 000.00 -- Rs.10.00 (ii) exceeds Rs.5, 000.00 but does not exceed Rs.20, 000.00 -- Rs.20.00 (iii) exceeds Rs.20, 000.00 but does not exceed Rs.50, 000.00 -- Rs.50.00 (iv) exceeds Rs.50, 000.00 -- Rs.100.00" 7. The petitioner in support of his case has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Pechitti Ramakrishna v. Nekkanti Venkata Manohara Rao, 2004 (1) ALD 557 . and the relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: "4. A careful reading of Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Act goes to show that it is applicable if the agreement relates to construction of a house or building including a multi-unit house or building or unit of apartment/flat/portion of a multi-storied building or for development/sale of any other immovable property. A further reading of the stamp duty payable specified in column No. 2 also makes it clear that this provision was introduced in relation to the construction agreements or agreements of the like nature. No doubt, emphasis was laid on the language "sale of any other immovable property". A further reading of the stamp duty payable specified in column No. 2 also makes it clear that this provision was introduced in relation to the construction agreements or agreements of the like nature. No doubt, emphasis was laid on the language "sale of any other immovable property". These words "sale of any other immovable property" in Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act may have to be read along with the rest of the provision and also with column No. 2. As far as any other case specified in Article 6(C) of Schedule I-A of the Act is concerned, it should be construed to be a case not falling under either A or B of Schedule I-A of the Act. It is needles to say that Article 6(A) of Schedule I-A of the Act is a general provision. It is no doubt true that in the present case, the sale consideration recited in the agreement of sale is Rs.42, 500.00 and it is in relation to the sale of a vacant site. On a careful reading of the language employed in Article 6(A, B and C) of Schedule I-A of the Act and also the stamp duty payable specified in column No. 2 and taking into consideration the object of introducing B by A.P. Act 21 of 1995, I am of the considered opinion that Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act would be applicable only in such specified cases and the same cannot override the general provision of Article 6(A) of Schedule I-A of the Act and agreement in question would definitely fall under the general provision of Article 6(A)(iii) of Schedule 1-A of the Act and hence, the stamp duty already paid is sufficient. It is also clarified that in the light of the nature of the document Article 6(B) of Schedule-I-A of the Act is not applicable to the present case. Hence, the impugned order holding that the stamp duty and penalty relating to the document in question is liable to be paid under Article 6(B) of Schedule IA of the Act cannot be sustained." 8. The petitioner submits that though respondent No.3 is aware of the legal position and principles laid down in various cases failed to fix the fix stamp duty on insufficient Agreement of Sale dtd. 17/9/2020 in respect of open plots. The petitioner submits that though respondent No.3 is aware of the legal position and principles laid down in various cases failed to fix the fix stamp duty on insufficient Agreement of Sale dtd. 17/9/2020 in respect of open plots. A copy of agreement of sale has been filed as material papers in this writ petition and on perusal of the same which is executed on 17/9/2020 between the petitioner and one K.Chenna Reddy in favour of the petitioner. It is to be noted that the subject properties of agreement of sale as per the schedule of properties A, B, C and D are bits and parcels of the open plot and thereafter the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 2023 for specific performance when the said executant Mr.K.Chenna Reddy has not come forward to register the document. 9. The petitioner submits that in terms of Article 6 of the Schedule 1-A of Indian Stamp Act as amended by Telangana State, stamp duty on an agreement of sale is only Rs.200.00, the agreement of sale was executed on Rs.50.00 stamp paper for which there is a deficit of Rs.150.00 and respondent No.3 ought to have fixed the stamp duty at Rs.150.00 and Rs.1500.00 as penalty totalling to Rs.1650.00 but, respondent No.3 has fixed the stamp duty of Rs.1, 24, 950.00 and imposed 10 times penalty amounting to Rs.12, 49, 500.00 which is arbitrary and illegal. Questioning the same present writ petition is filed. 10. In similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court in the case of Shaik Jani Pasha v. The State of Telangana and others, 2023 3 ALD 70 . held that in respect of open lands, it is only under Article 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, applies but not Article 6(b) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The relevant paragraphs of the said order is extracted hereunder: "6. In the case of Saranam Peda Appaiah v. S.Narasimha Reddy (2004 (6) ALT 23 (D.B.), a division Bench of this Court has considered the similar issue and held as under:- "Article 6(B) is very clear in its expression that in case of any transactions relating to construction of a house etc. In the case of Saranam Peda Appaiah v. S.Narasimha Reddy (2004 (6) ALT 23 (D.B.), a division Bench of this Court has considered the similar issue and held as under:- "Article 6(B) is very clear in its expression that in case of any transactions relating to construction of a house etc. as mentioned in descriptive column of the instrument, the stamp duty required is Rs.5.00 for every hundred or part thereof, of the market value or the estimated cost of proposed construction or development of such property as the case may be. Therefore, the question that calls for consideration is whether the said Article covers the agricultural land also. It is a cardinal principle of the interpretation that the provision interpreted with reference to the words contained in the provisions and by interpretative process, it is neither to be expanded nor constricted. When the Legislature has specifically referred to the document relating to construction of house, apartment, flat, portion of multi-storied building etc and the stamp duty is payable on the market value or the estimated cost of the said property, it has to be confined only to houses, multi unit houses or apartment etc. Even the valuation was sought to be arrived at on the basis of the rates prescribed by the Public Works Department authorities. Further it is noticed that the transactions left over by Article 6(B) are covered by Article 6(C). Therefore, it cannot also be said that there was vacuum in the Article. In the instant case, the agreement is after 1/4/1995, but it relates to the agricultural land. Taking the clue from the last expression in the document namely "sale of any other immovable property" it was contended that it would embrace in its fold other immovable property including the agricultural property and therefore, the stamp duty has to be paid on that basis. But, that contention cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the expression the sale of any other immovable property has to be interpreted keeping in view the principles of ejusdem generis namely where general words fallow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or classes as specifically mentioned. Otherwise, the other provisions become otiose." 7. Otherwise, the other provisions become otiose." 7. Further, in the case of Pechitti Ramakrishna v. Nekkanti Venkata Manohara Rao and others ( 2004 (6) ALT 427 (S.B), a learned Single Judge of this Court has considered the application under Article 6(B) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, but not under Article 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which it reads as under:- "A careful reading of Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Act goes to show that it is applicable if the agreement relates to construction of a house or building including a multi-unit house or building or unit of apartment/flat/portion of a multi-storied building or for development/sale of any other immovable property. A further reading of the stamp duty payable specified in column No. 2 also makes it clear that this provision was introduced in relation to the construction agreements or agreements of the like nature. No doubt, emphasis was laid on the language "sale of any other immovable property". These words "sale of any other immovable property" in Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Act may have to be read along with the rest of the provision and also with column No. 2. As far as any other case specified in Article 6(C) of Schedule 1-A of the Act is concerned, it should be construed to be a case not falling under either A or B of Schedule 1-A of the Act. It is needles to say that Article 6(A) of Schedule 1-A of the Act is a general provision. It is no doubt true that in the present case, the sale consideration recited in the agreement of sale is Rs.42, 500.00 and it is in relation to the sale of a vacant site. It is needles to say that Article 6(A) of Schedule 1-A of the Act is a general provision. It is no doubt true that in the present case, the sale consideration recited in the agreement of sale is Rs.42, 500.00 and it is in relation to the sale of a vacant site. On a careful reading of the language employed in Article 6(A, B and C) of Schedule 1-A of the Act and also the stamp duty payable specified in column No. 2 and taking into consideration the object of introducing B by A.P. Act 21 of 1995, I am of the considered opinion that Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Act would be applicable only in such specified cases and the same cannot override the general provision of Article 6(A) of Schedule 1-A of the Act and agreement in question would definitely fall under the general provision of Article 6(A)(iii) of Schedule 1-A of the Act and hence, the stamp duty already paid is sufficient. It is also clarified that in the light of the nature of the document Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Act is not applicable to the present case. Hence, the impugned order holding that the stamp duty and penalty relating to the document in question is liable to be paid under Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Act cannot be sustained." 11. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has placed a copy of instructions issued by the District Registrar and in the instructions, it is submitted that according to the procedure in vogue, the Collector under Stamp Act i.e., concerned District Registrar is expected to pass orders under the provisions of Sec. 41-A of Indian Stamp Act as to the stamp duty and penalty payable and if such orders are not agreeable, the aggrieved parties may prefer an appeal under Sec. 56 of the Indian Stamp Act to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for modification etc., of such orders and in the instant case, the petitioner without waiting for issuance of orders by respondent No.3 under Sec. 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act has moved to this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 12. 12. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration further submits that as of now there is no pending representation from the petitioner and if such representation is made to respondent No.3, respondents may be directed to pass appropriate orders. 13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions referred above, there is no dispute that the subject land as per agreement of sale is a open land and no constructions are existing and in view of the same the subject documents shall be impounded by applying Article 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act and not Article 6(B) of Schedule 1(A) of Indian Stamp Act as claimed by respondent authorities. 14. Recording the submissions of learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file representation before respondent No.3 within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for clarifying the quantum of stamp duty to be charged on the subject document and thereafter, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of one (1) week thereafter. 15. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.