ORDER : 1. Questioning the impugned notice dated 02.09.2009 and the very impugned circular memo dated 29.05.2007 as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 2(10) and Article 46 and 49 of Schedule 1A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner’s mother Smt.Lalita Bai inherited a total extent of house property bearing No.3191 (old) H.No.7-2-533 to 7-2-546 (new) admeasuring 421 sq.yds., at Buruguchetty Bazar, Secunderabad from her maternal grandparents under a Deed of Settlement vide Doc.No.1142 of 1956. Thereafter, petitioner’s mother died on 30.08.1988 leaving behind 5 sons and 4 daughters. Petitioner is the 5th son and whereabouts of 3 rd son is not known since long time. Thereafter, a portion of the property inherited by the petitioner was released in favour of wife of 3 rd son under deed of partial partition registered vide Doc.No.1795/2008 dated 17.10.2008. It is further submitted that the 3 rd sister Smt.Usha Khatri died on 19.04.1994 leaving behind two legal heirs. It is further submitted that petitioner’s eldest brother viz., Sri Ananth Prasad along with 4 sisters, 2 legal heirs of 3 rd sister who are all 8 co-owners have executed a release deed dated 18.10.2008 vide Doc.No.1831/2008 in favour of petitioner herein; and 2 brothers of petitioner retained their respective portions. Thereafter, the said release deed was presented before respondent No.3 for registration. 3. Respondent No.3 after examination of the entire contents of the documents and after having satisfied that the said deed was released in favour of petitioner, imposed the duty as contemplated under Article 46 of Schedule 1A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioner further submits that as per the recitals of the document, market value was assessed by the petitioner at Rs.30,00,000/-, whereas respondent No.3 after verifying the specifications of the property did not agree with the market value mentioned by the petitioner and fixed a market value of Rs.45,00,000/- and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,07,450/- as stamp duty and registration charges and on payment of the same, the document was registered and released in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.3 within 10 days of registration of the document, based on an internal audit, issued notice dated 02.09.2009 under Article 41A of Schedule IA of Stamp Duty on Certain Instruments under the Stamp (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1922 to the petitioner claiming a deficit stamp duty of Rs.9,02,025/-. 4. Subsequently, petitioner approached respondent No.3 and stated that the subject document was a relinquishment deed which is between family members and not a sale deed. However, without hearing the contention of the petitioner, respondent No.1 on 02.09.2009, has calculated the market value of the subject property at Rs.1,06,25,000/- and claimed stamp duty of Rs.9,02,025/. Thereafter, petitioner approached respondent No.1 and explained the contents of the documents, however, respondent No.1 clearly stated that said notice under Article 41A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was issued based on the circular issued by respondent No.2 on 29.05.2007 and hence insisted the petitioner either to pay the deficit stamp duty or the matter will be disposed of on merits and further action will be taken to recover the deficit stamp duty under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act. Having left with no other option, petitioner had given an undertaking to pay the entire deficit stamp duty. It is further submitted that the said undertaking was given under coercion and threat of complications for the reason that after the release deed got registered, petitioner got entered into a Development Agreement dated 08.12.2008 with M/s.Sneha Constructions and also demolished the existing structures. Questioning the said notice dated 02.09.2009 and also the Circular dated 29.05.2007, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Mr.Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would refer to Circular Memo issued by respondent No.2 dated 29.05.2007 which reads as follows: “During the course of Review of AG objections certain misclassification of document was noticed, resulting in loss of revenue to the Government. There were two cases one was pertaining to Doc.No.2658/2005 of SRO, Azampura and Doc.No.3427/2005 of SRO, Dharmavaram. Both the documents dealt with the release of shares among the coparceners. What was to be taken as ‘Conveyance on Sale’ was taken as ‘Release’. The mistake that was noticed was that all the ingredients of ‘Release was not in the document but still the Registering authority failed to notice this. Such glaring and serious omissions result in heavy loss of revenue to the Government. What was to be taken as ‘Conveyance on Sale’ was taken as ‘Release’. The mistake that was noticed was that all the ingredients of ‘Release was not in the document but still the Registering authority failed to notice this. Such glaring and serious omissions result in heavy loss of revenue to the Government. To curb such evasion of stamp duty and to protect the state revenues, all the internal Audit Officers are advised to conduct audit keeping in view the following explanation. While determining the nature of instrument as release, the following facts must be available in the document; 1. That all the coparcners/co-owners have joined in the instrument either as Releaser(s) or Releasee(s) and that no coparceners/co-owner is left outside the instrument and; 2. That there must be a clear and ambiguous statement in the instrument regarding joining of all coparceners/co-owners and; 3. All the properties in which the coparceners/co-owners having the interest are included in the instrument. All the field Officers are requested to follow the instructions scrupulously and ensure that no mistake takes place in misclassifying certain conveyance of sale as ‘Release’ or otherwise.” 6. Learned senior counsel would submit that the said circular is not applicable to the present case on hand and is contrary to the provisions of Article 46A of Schedule IA of Stamp Duty on Certain Instruments under the Stamp (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1922. 7. Article 46A is extracted hereunder: “46. RELEASE, that is to say: A) Any instrument (not being such a release as is provided for by section 23-A) whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property: a) Where the amount or value of the claim does not exceed Rs. 1000 : Three rupees for every one hundred rupees or part thereof on the consideration for such release as set forth therein or the market value of the property whichever is higher, over which claim is relinquished. b) Where it exceeds Rs. 1,000/- : The same duty as under the Clause (a) for the first Rs.1,000 and for every Rs.500 or part thereof in excess of Rs.1000/- fifteen rupees on the consideration or market value of the property, whichever is higher over which claim is relinquished.” 8. b) Where it exceeds Rs. 1,000/- : The same duty as under the Clause (a) for the first Rs.1,000 and for every Rs.500 or part thereof in excess of Rs.1000/- fifteen rupees on the consideration or market value of the property, whichever is higher over which claim is relinquished.” 8. Learned senior counsel would submit that in terms of Article 46A, any person may either out of their own interest retain the property or release in favour of family members. However, in the said Memo dated 29.05.2007, the Commissioner and Inspector General has not taken factual aspects of releasing the property in case of joint family properties where there could be possibility that some members may retain and some may release the property in favour of coparceners. Learned senior counsel would draw attention of this Court to release deed dated 18.10.2008 and would submit that said Vinod Kumar one of the brothers of the petitioner, who retained the property, has signed the document and is well aware of the recitals of the document. Learned senior counsel would further submit that subsequent to the notice dated 02.09.2009, the petitioner has addressed a letter to Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad requesting for payment of deficit stamp duty in 6 instalments. 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, would rely on a judgment of this Court in D. Praveen v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another , 2012 (5) ALD 587 wherein this Court has clarified and distinguished the difference between the sale and release. The relevant paragraph Nos.6 to 8 are extracted herein for the purpose of reference: “6. The petitioner had two sisters. All the three inherited the premises mentioned above from their mother. The sisters of the petitioner intended to release their share in his favour on payment of consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. and accordingly executed a deed of release on 16.10.2008. The said deed was presented for registration. The respondents took the view that the transaction evidenced by the document is the one of sale and insisted on payment of stamp duty, registration charges on that basis. Therefore, it becomes necessary to take note of the distinction between the transactions of ‘sale’ and ‘release’. 7. The said deed was presented for registration. The respondents took the view that the transaction evidenced by the document is the one of sale and insisted on payment of stamp duty, registration charges on that basis. Therefore, it becomes necessary to take note of the distinction between the transactions of ‘sale’ and ‘release’. 7. It is too well-known that ‘sale’ as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the TP Act’), takes place, when a person holding title in an item of immovable property, conveys his title to another, for consideration. It is also permissible for a co- owner of an item of immovable property, to transfer his share in favour of third party for consideration. In such a case also, the transaction would be the one of sale. Delivery of the possession, whether physical or symbolical, of the property, is an essential part of the transaction of sale. 8. The word ‘release’ is not defined either under the TP Act or under any other enactment, including the Stamp Act. However, its connotation is that, one of the owners of an item of property, releases himself from the legal rights and obligations in favour of the rest of the co-owners, or some of them. Such release can be with or without any consideration. Though a sale and release resemble each other in the context of loss of title of the transferor or rights in favour of others, what differentiates the one for the other is that, the transferee under a sale is bereft of any prior title in the property, whereas in the case of release, he happens to be a person already holding right or limited ownership. It would be a fresh and new acquisition of property by a purchaser under a sale, whereas in the case of release it would only result in the enlargement of the intent held by the co-owners or joint owners.” 9.1 A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 i.e., the District Registrar, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad stating that the deficit stamp duty was levied basing on the rate fixed under the market value guidelines by the Committee in respect of the property in question. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the market value which was imposed by respondent No.3 at the time of registering the document is in accordance to law is incorrect, since respondent No.3 has not properly examined the contents of the document whether it falls under conveyance or not and calculated the stamp duty. It is only during the audit of the office, the audit party noticed the said discrepancy and directed the concerned authority to collect the deficit stamp duty. The petitioner was provided with ample opportunity to submit his response and utilizing the same, petitioner has made a representation agreeing to pay the amount on 6 equal instalments. 10. Learned senior counsel submits that the said letter dated 19.09.2009 requesting to pay the above deficit amount in 6 equal instalments was given under coercion and under threat of cancellation of registration of Development Agreement entered into between the petitioner and M/s.Sneha Constructions. 11. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. Perused the record. 12. It is pertinent to note that this Court on 16.02.2010 has granted an order of interim stay of further proceedings on the impugned notice dated 02.09.2009 and the same was extended from time to time and thereafter by an order dated 15.06.2017 was made absolute in the absence of any vacate stay petition. 13. Admittedly, it appears that there is no dispute among the family members as far as release deed dated 18.10.2008 is concerned. On a close examination of Article 46A of Schedule IA, it is clear that if any person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property, the stamp duty is prescribed. The Circular Memo dated 29.05.2007 issued by Commissioner and Inspector General, do not contain any source of statute or any provisions of Indian Stamp Act and issuance of notice for payment of deficit stamp duty basing on the said Circular Memo is not sustainable under law. 14. On a perusal of the impugned notice dated 02.09.2009 issued under Section 41A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, issued by the District Registrar, Hyderabad, with respect to Doc.No.1831/2008 wherein petitioner was a party, a stamp duty of Rs.1,06,350/- was paid. 14. On a perusal of the impugned notice dated 02.09.2009 issued under Section 41A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, issued by the District Registrar, Hyderabad, with respect to Doc.No.1831/2008 wherein petitioner was a party, a stamp duty of Rs.1,06,350/- was paid. But the market value of the property in the document worked out to Rs.1,06,25,000/- and the stamp duty chargeable was Rs.10,08,375/- as such the deficit stamp duty was determined as Rs.9,02,025/-. Based on audit remarks, it is observed that out of 5 sons of late Sri Motilal, two sons namely Sri Narsing Prasad and Sri Vinod Kumar have not joined or included as co-owners or co-parceners, and the document in question was clarified as ‘Conveyance on Sale’ based on Circular dated 29.05.2007. Accordingly, the stamp duty was worked out and demand was raised to recover the deficit stamp duty as per the provisions of Indian Stamp Act. 15. This Court in the case of D. Praveen (supra) in paragraph 8 has took note of the difference and distinction between the transactions of ‘sale’ and ‘release’ and it is held as follows: 8. The word ‘release’ is not defined either under the TP Act or under any other enactment, including the Stamp Act. However, its connotation is that, one of the owners of an item of property, releases himself from the legal rights and obligations in favour of the rest of the co-owners, or some of them. Such release can be with or without any consideration. Though a sale and release resemble each other in the context of loss of title of the transferor or rights in favour of others, what differentiates the one for the other is that, the transferee under a sale is bereft of any prior title in the property, whereas in the case of release, he happens to be a person already holding right or limited ownership. It would be a fresh and new acquisition of property by a purchaser under a sale, whereas in the case of release it would only result in the enlargement of the intent held by the co-owners or joint owners. 16. It would be a fresh and new acquisition of property by a purchaser under a sale, whereas in the case of release it would only result in the enlargement of the intent held by the co-owners or joint owners. 16. In view of the above settled legal position, the contention that the brothers of the petitioners have not joined the release deed dated 18.10.2008 and that the document has been entered among the family members by releasing their respective rights is to be clarified as ‘conveyance of sale’ based on circular and the demand for recovery of deficit stamp duty is not sustainable. 17. In the case on hand, such release of rights would only result in enlargement of intent held by co-owners or joint owners and admittedly no third party has joined said document. As such by no stretch of imagination, release deed cannot be considered as ‘conveyance of sale’ and the impugned notice cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 02.09.2009 is hereby set aside and Circular Memo is also contrary to Section 2(10) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and accordingly the writ petition is allowed. 18. Petitioner is at liberty to make appropriate application for refund of excess stamp duty and on such application, the respondent authorities shall examine and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of such application. 19. Writ petition stands allowed, accordingly. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.