JUDGMENT DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J. - The present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dtd. 30/8/2023 in W.P.No.13835 of 2009. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are that, an agreement for sale of land came to be executed on 23/4/2008 between the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (in short APIIC"), a Government company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, and the appellant, M/s. Ramky Pharma City (India) Limited in regard to land measuring twenty nine acres and sixty one and half cents for development of residential township for pharma city in Visakhapatnam. The cost of the plot was fixed at Rs.4, 44, 22, 500.00 @ Rs.15.00 Lakhs per acre. The important conditions constituting the agreement for sale were as under: "1. The Party of the Second Part has as a condition precedent to being placed in possession of the land allotted made the full payment of the cost of the plot fixed at Rs.4, 44, 22, 500.00 at the rate of Rs.15.00 lacs per Acre. 2. The date and time are the essence of the contract. 3. Only on the Party of the Second Part implementing 80% of the scheme as per the project envisaged in the allotted land, the sale deed will be executed and registered. The Party of the Second Part agrees and assure that they will not request for execution of the sale deed until project is substantially implemented as detailed above. The Party of the Second Part expressly agrees upon intimation of its eligibility for sale deed by the Party of the First Part to take the sale deed and take steps for registration of the same within one month of such intimation by the Party of the First Part. 4(a) On the request of the Party of the Second Part in writing to the Party of the First Part agree to the Party of the Second Part raising money on the scheduled property hereby agreed to be sold not withstanding to the contrary in this agreement by rising a loan from the approved financial institution/scheduled banks on the security of the Scheduled Property. ......... 6(n). ......... 6(n). Sale Deed will be issued by the Party of the First Part in favour of the Party of the Second Part on payment of all the dues to the Party of the second part with interest including penalties, maintenance charges, water charges, property taxes as stipulated from time to time by the Party of the First Part and after substantial development of Residential Township i.e. implementation of 80% scheme as per the project envisaged. 6(o). That if the Party of the Second Part commits breach of any of the covenants herein contained, the allotment stands cancelled and this agreement shall stand determined without any notice thereupon the Party of the Second Part will be treated as an encroacher and a trespasser who will have no right whatsoever in the schedule property under these present and it shall be lawful for the Party of the First Part to re-enter upon the said land and resume possession thereof and also of the buildings standing thereon, the transfer made in favour of the Party of the Second Part under these presents shall become null and void and all rights of the Party of the Second Part in the schedule property under this agreement and any building thereon shall at once cease and determine. Prior notice of the re-entry to the financial institutions, if necessary will be given by the Party of the First Part. In such event of cancellation/resumption of the property allotted, the payments made by the Party of the Second Part shall remain forfeited towards use and occupation of the premises. However, the Party of the First Part may as its option consider refund of the amounts paid by the Party of the Second Part towards the cost of the property subject to the following deductions. i) EMD will be forfeited. ii) The amounts paid will be refunded depending on the period of occupation as per the following schedule. Period of occupation Deduction to be made (in years) on the cost of the plot C-1 3% 1-2 6% 2-3 9% 3-4 12% 4-5 14% 5-6 16% 6-7 18% 7-8 20% Beyond 8 years 25% In case the amounts paid by the allottee is less than deductions to be made, no claim for further payment shall be made. No interest will be paid to the Party of the Second Part in this respect. No interest will be paid to the Party of the Second Part in this respect. If there are any building on the land other than shed/land, the Party of the First Part may at its option either refund the cost as assessed by it after the assessed cost is collected from the incoming party or otherwise direct the Party of the Second Part to remove the buildings at their cost within such time as may be allowed by the Party of the First Part." 3. The case set up by the appellant is that after the execution of the document between the parties, the said document was registered on which stamp duty was assessed and paid Rs.4, 44, 225.00 representing 1% of the value of consideration of the land in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1481, dtd. 30/11/2007 and G.O.Ms.No.568, dtd. 1/4/2008. It may be worthwhile to mention that G.O.Ms.No.1481 had rescinded the earlier G.O.Ms.No.1475, dtd. 30/7/2005 which had envisaged the calculation of stamp duty payable in respect of documents relating to agreements or memoranda of agreements of sale/construction/development of the immovable properties @ 1% on the sale consideration or estimated cost of construction/development declared by the parties in the document. G.O.Ms.No.1481, after rescinding G.O.Ms.No.1475, substituted the same and envisaged payment of 1% stamp duty on the aforementioned documents and envisaged that the duty paid calculated @ 1% on the sale consideration shall not be adjusted against the stamp duty payable on sale deeds to be registered at a later date in pursuance of such agreements of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney. This was yet again followed by G.O.Ms.No.568, dtd. 1/4/2008 which in effect reiterated the position reflected in G.O.Ms.No.1481, dtd. 30/11/2007. 4. It appears that a notice came to be issued under Sec. 41A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (in short, the Act of 1899") by the District Registrar requiring the petitioner/appellant herein to deposit the deficit stamp duty provisionally calculated at Rs.26, 65, 250.00 and deficit registration fee calculated at Rs.2, 21, 115.00, amounting to a total of Rs.28, 86, 365.00, on the premise that since the document i.e. the sale agreement executed between the parties had reflected handing over of possession, it requires stamp duty to be paid in terms of Explanation-I of Article 47A of Schedule IA of the Act of 1899. 5. 5. Against the notice under Sec. 41-A of the Act of 1899, issued by the District Registrar, representation was made by the petitioner in terms of Sec. 41-A(2) which was considered by the Collector but the representation was rejected by virtue of its order, dtd. 11/12/2008. An appeal then came to be preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority in terms of Sec. 41-A(3) under the Act of 1899, which too came to be dismissed by virtue of order dtd. 20/5/2009. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was then challenged before the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13835 of 2009 which too came to be dismissed by virtue of the judgment and order impugned dtd. 30/8/2023. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the dismissal of the writ petition and consequential upholding of the order passed by the Appellate Authority is unsustainable in law inasmuch as the agreement ought to have been governed by G.O.Ms.No.1481, dtd. 30/11/2007 and G.O.Ms.No.568, dtd. 1/4/2008 which specifically provided stamp duty on agreement or development of immovable properties at 1% of the consideration reflected in the document. It was sought to be emphasized by learned counsel for the appellant that the stamp duty could not have been levied at par with the sale deed inasmuch as the sale deed was to be executed only if the appellant had made substantial development of Residential Township i.e. implementation of 80% of the scheme as per the project envisaged in regard to the allotted land as per the agreement and further that the possession of the said land was handed over to the appellant only for a specific and limited purpose which could not had been construed as a conveyance for purpose of levying of stamp duty. In addition to this, it was sought to be emphasized that the learned single Judge had not correctly followed the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of B.Uma Devi Vs. Greated Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and another, 2007 (6) ALD 356 . as also Nellore Sujanamma Vs. Desireddy Somasekhar Reddy, (2023) SCC Online AP 975. 7. Greated Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and another, 2007 (6) ALD 356 . as also Nellore Sujanamma Vs. Desireddy Somasekhar Reddy, (2023) SCC Online AP 975. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand reiterate the stand which had been taken by the respondents before the writ Court and stated that the order passed by the Appellate Authority, as upheld by the learned single Judge, was legally correct and did not warrant any interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. On a bare perusal of the agreement executed between the appellant and the APIIC, it can be very clearly seen that the same was an agreement for sale of land. As a condition precedent for putting the appellant in possession of the land, the appellant had paid the full payment for the cost of the plot at Rs.4, 44, 22, 500.00 to the respondent, the APIIC Limited. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, request for execution of the sale deed could be made by the appellant only if the project was substantially implemented, failing which, the APIIC was entitled to the restoration of land in its favour. 10. On a bare perusal of the agreement executed between the parties, there is no doubt that the same was an agreement for sale where even the date for handing over of possession had been fixed as the condition precedent i.e., the receipt of full payment of the cost of plot had been satisfied. 11. It is not the case of the appellant that the appellant was not put in the possession of the property in question pursuant to the execution of the agreement of sale. Neither is it anybody"s case that the property, being the subject matter under the agreement, was sought to be resumed by the APIIC on account of any alleged failure on the part of the appellant herein. If that be so, the only question that requires to be considered is whether the contention of the appellant that stamp duty was chargeable only at 1% of the declared value on the document is correct or whether the authorities were legally justified in charging stamp duty in terms of Explanation-I of Article 47A of Schedule IA of the Act of 1899. 12. 12. There is absolutely no ambiguity at all in the fact that duty is chargeable in terms of Explanation-I of Article 47A of Schedule IA of the Act of 1899. For facility of reference, the said Explanation-I of Article 47A of Schedule IA of the Act of 1899, is reproduced hereunder: "An agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable as a "sale" under this article: Provided that, where subsequently a sale deed is executed in pursuance of a agreement of sale as aforesaid or in pursuance of an agreement referred to in clause-(b) of article 6, the stamp duty, if any, already paid or recovered on the agreement of sale shall be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the sale deed." 13. In our opinion, the document being agreement of sale dtd. 23/4/2008 falls squarely within the purview and ambit of Explanation-I of Article 47A of Schedule IA of the Act of 1899, as it is not only an agreement of sale but also admittedly was followed by delivery of possession. 14. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the document was only a development agreement and not an agreement of sale as the said agreement had clearly envisaged execution of sale deed upon fulfilment of certain terms and conditions which in the present case appears to have been followed as the APIIC Limited has not initiated any steps for restoration of possession and execution of a sale deed may be a foregone conclusion. 15. For the reasons above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.