( 1 ) I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Ch. S. R. K. Prasad, J. and while respectfully agreeing with his Lordship s opinion that the writ appeals should be allowed, the order of the learned single judge impugned in these appeals should be set aside and writ petition Nos. 3276 of 1989 and 8365 of 1989 should be dismissed, I wish to rest my opinion on the reasons I presently state.

( 2 ) THE only question that arose before the learned single Judge, as the learned single judge himself has stated in the order, was whether the Government was justified and whether the Government have the power to instruct the registering officers to register a document only where the consideration shown therein accords with the value shown for that property in the Basic Value Register? the learned single Judge, on consideration of the statutory provisions and the case law then available, reco?ded his finding/opinion in the following words:". . . . . HAVING regard to the nature of the function, the language of the Section, and all other concerns and considerations mentioned hereinbefore, i hold that ordinarily the registering officer shall accept the consideration stated in the document as representing the true market value, unless there is clear material before him to hold that the parties to the document have deliberately understated the consideration with a view to avoid stamp duty. In this connection, he may also be entitled to look into the values stated in the Basic Value register for that property. Having regard to the generalized nature of the basic Value Register, he may, as a working rule, treat a document as under-valued if the consideration stated therein is less than 50% of the value stated in the Basic Value Register as in force on 30-6-1989. If the consideration stated in the document is equal to 50% of the value stated in the basic Value Register (as on 30-6-1989) or more, he shall register the same forthwith. Similarly, where the Basic value Register (as on 30-6-1989) states two or three different values depending upon the purpose for which the land is being purchased, as has happened in this case, he shall ignore the higher value and shall adopt the lowest value or the value prescribed in the Basic Value Register. This position shall obtain till a statutory basis is provided to the Basic Value Register. "

( 3 ) TWO sets of questions were debated before us in these appeals. The first relate to the question whether the learned single judge is justifiedin directing that the registering authority should ordinarily accept the consideration stated in the document as representing the true market value, unless there is clear material placed before him to hold that the parties to the document have deliberately under-stated the consideration with a view to avoid stamp duty. We are also called upon to decide whether the learned single Judge is justified and acted legally in directing the registering authority to treat the document as under-valued if the consideration stated therein is less than 50% of the value stated in the Basic Value Register as in force on 30-6-1989 and in directing the registering authority to register the document if the consideration stated therein is equal to or more than 50% of the value stated in the basic Value Register (as on 30-6-1989 ). The second question debated before us was whether the learned single Judge was at all justified in entertaining the writ petitions filed by the petitioners without exhausting the statutory remedies provided under the a. P. Stamps and Registration Act, (Act 17 of 1986), (for short, the Act ).

( 4 ) AFTER the Judgment of the learned single Judge, impugned in these writ appeals, in M/s. Sagar Cements Ltd. v. State of andhra Pradesh, this Court, single Judge benches as well as Division Benches, have had to consider the question whether the registering Authority shall take into account or eschew the rates shown in the