S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE proviso to sub-section (2) of section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, as amended by A. P. Act No. 8 of 1998, which imposes a pre-condition of depositing the difference in the amount of duty determined by the Collector under sub-section (2) of section 47-A on reference from the registering Officer under sub-section (1) thereof, for preferring an appeal under subsection (5) of Section 47-A of the Act against the order of the Collector passed under sub-section (2), is challenged in this writ Petition as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is as follows: the petitioners entered into various conveyance deeds for purchase of property at Municipal Nos. 8-2-592, 593 and 592/1 situated at Mehid Nawaz Jung Road, hyderabad. Seven documents in relation thereto were presented for registration before the 3rd respondent in the month of december, 1996. The 3rd respondent directed the petitioners to pay an amount of rs. 12,06,970 being the deficit stamp duty on an assessment of the market value of the property. On reference to the 2nd respondent-The District Registrar (R and S) registration and Stamps Department-cum- collector by the Registering Officer under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Indian stamp Act, 1899, the same was confirmed by proceedings dated 27-3-2000 in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 47-A. The petitioners filed an appeal as provided under sub-section (5) of Section 47-A of the Act before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. The said appeal was, however, returned by the Court on 20-4-2000 with an endorsement that the petitioner must deposit into Court the deficit stamp duty amount of rs. 12,06,970/-, in terms of the proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act as a pre-condition for entertaining the appeal. Challenging the constitutionality of the said proviso, the present writ petition is filed.

( 3 ) A Division Bench of this Court in p. Laxmi Devi v. Government of A. P. while considering the validity of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 47-A whereby a pre-condition of depositing of fifty percent of the deficit duty arrived at by the registering Officer was imposed for making reference to the Collector for determination of the market value of the property under sub-section (2), held: the object and amendment of the stamp Act is to collect the proper stamp duty and such proper stamp duty is dependent upon the determination of market value of the subject-matter of the document and such determination is only made by the Collector and until such determination is made by the collector, the document which is received for registration even after collection of whatever stamp duty deposited and the registration fee is paid by the party, is not released to the party, but is kept pending registration and such document kept pending registration is not having any evidentiary value and is not entered into the books of registration and no certified copy of the same can be granted and no rights flow from such document, be it sale, exchange, gift, mortgage, lease etc. By keeping the document pending registration, there is enough safeguard for collecting the deficit stamp duty, as in the event of the collector accepting the valuation suggested by the Registering Officer and the party not paying the said stamp duty, the document remains under pending registration and even may be returned to the party for want of the payment of the differential stamp duty. This being the aim and intendment of the stamp duty protecting the public exchequer, there is absolutely no nexus for calling upon the party to deposit fifty per cent of the differential stamp duty as a condition for making reference. It is not that a party seeks a reference on his own, but the registering Officer is duty bound to refer the moment party does not accept the valuation suggested by him. The party presenting a document is the master of his choice as to whether he should depos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document