Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 254 (AP)

A. S. Gurappa v. Sub Registrar

2024-02-15

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Heard Sri K. A. Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned AGP for Stamps and Registration, representing respondents No.1, 2 & 3. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs: “…to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in action on the part of the 1st Respondent in not registering and releasing the Documents bearing Nos.P 26/2009 and P 27/2009 dated 23-12-2009 and 24-12-2009 respectively in which the petitioner has paid stamp duty and registration charges for more than the double of the government market in Sy.No.254/2 of Tiruchanur Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District as unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of equity and natural justice and consequentially direct the Respondents to take necessary action in registering and releasing Documents bearing Nos.P 26/2009 and P 27/2009 dated 23-12-2009 and 24-12-2009 respectively and pass such other order or orders…..” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased Ac.28½ cents of land comprised in Sy.No.254/2 situated at Tiruchanur, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, vide two sale deeds for the same area in the same survey number dated 23.12.2009 and 24.12.2009 respectively. Those documents being Document No.P26/2009 of Book-1 and Document No.P27/2009 of Book-1 were presented for registration. The petitioner paid stamp duty of Rs.84,690/- on each of both the sale deeds as also registration fee of Rs.4,705/- each for both the said documents. The Collector under Section 41 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, the 1st respondent issued notice dated 08.05.2012 informing the petitioner with respect to Document No.P26/2009 that actually the document was chargeable with stamp duty of Rs.1,69,380/- and the registration fee of Rs.9,410/- thus, pointing out the deficiency in stamp duty of Rs.84,690/- and registration fee of Rs.4,705/-, total of Rs.89,395/- the petitioner was directed to make payment of deficit amount within 7 days. A notice to the same effect has also been given to the petitioner with respect to Document No.P27/2009, pointing out the deficit stamp duty and registration fee totaling of Rs.89,300/-, the petitioner was directed to pay the deficit amount within 7 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that previously also two notices to the same effect, as the notice of 2012 were given showing the same deficiency. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that previously also two notices to the same effect, as the notice of 2012 were given showing the same deficiency. He submits that the petitioner filed reply dated 10.03.2010 Ex.P5 to those notices of the year 2010, but without considering the petitioner’s reply, the notices were again issued in the year 2012. He submits that the document No.P26/2009 and P27/2009 are lying with the registering authority but the registration has not been made. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner had paid the due stamp duty of Rs.84,690/- on each of the said sale deeds. In his submission, the stamp duty as mentioned in the notices chargeable on those documents is not correct and in fact there is no deficiency in payment of the stamp duty or in payment of the registration fee. In his submission, the stamp duty has been paid by the petitioner as per the market value register (agricultural properties) Form-III (Habitation and Classification Wise Values) Ex.P13. 5. Learned AGP, referring to the counter affidavit para-4 in particular, submits that there was deficit of stamp duty as also the registration fee as indicated in the notices, as also in the table mentioned in para-4, but the petitioner did not make the payment and therefore the sale deeds have not been registered. The contention of the petitioner that the market value of the subject property was Rs.66,00,000/- and that was disclosed by the sub-registrar has been denied in the counter affidavit. 6. On consideration of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the matter with respect to the chargeable stamp duty on two documents is a question of fact, whether the petitioner has paid the entire stamp duty or there is still deficit also requires investigation by the competent authority. A notice has been given to the petitioner. He has also filed his reply and consequently, it would be appropriate at this stage to direct the 1st Respondent to decide that question of stamp duty chargeable and deficiency, if any, considering the reply of the petitioner after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A notice has been given to the petitioner. He has also filed his reply and consequently, it would be appropriate at this stage to direct the 1st Respondent to decide that question of stamp duty chargeable and deficiency, if any, considering the reply of the petitioner after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It would not be appropriate to enter into such disputed questions of fact at the initial stage to be determined by this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, which require leading of evidence and consideration of rate list of market value along with such other documents. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is being disposed of finally, directing the 1st respondent-Sub-Registrar, Registration Office, Renigunta, Tirupathi, Chittoor District to consider the petitioner’s objections/reply to the notice, as issued, on the point of deficiency of stamp duty and registration fee and pass appropriate orders, with respect to the registration of the documents in question, in accordance with law, with due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three (03) months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the said authority. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.