( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the memo served on the petitioner by the Joint Sub-Registrar in the office of the District Registrar, Eluru dated 24-3-1999 and seeks a direction that the document in question may be registered treating it as a partition deed.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner along with other executants executed a document dated 21-7-1998, described by them as settlement deed, and presented it for registration before the concerned Sub-Registrar at Eluru on 14-9-1998. The document caried a stamp duty at the rate of 3% of the market value of the property as stated in the deed.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, the Joint Sub-Registrar did not take up the document for registration and got the impugned memo dated 24-3-1999 served on the petitioner calling upon him to pay the stamp duty at 6% of the market value. It appears that the executant of the document paid the stamp duty by ascertaining its value under Article 49-A of the Stamp Act whereas the Joint Sub-Registrar took the view that the stamp duty was payable under Article 49-B of the Stamp Act at 6% on the market value.

( 5 ) IT is this memo calling upon the petitioner to pay the stamp duty as above, which is now challenged in this petition and also a direction is sought to the Joint Sub-Registrar to register the document as presented on the stamp duty as already paid.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the document falls under Article 49-A of the Stamp Act and payment of 3% stamp duty must have been considered in compliance with law and that the Sub-Registrar s view that the document falls under Article 49-B of Schedule of the Stamp Act requiring payment of 6% stamp duty is errenous. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue on the other hand contends that at this stage this Court need not go into the question as to under what Article of the Stamp Act the document falls inasmuch as the petitioner has a remedy by either under the Stamp Act or under the Registration Act. He refers to Section 31 of the Stamp Act and contends that the petitioner ought to have approached the Collector under the said Section for adjudicating the proper stamp duty payable on the document in question. Section 31 of the Stamp Act reads as follows:

( 7 ) 31. Adjudication as to proper stamp :- 1) "when any instrument, whether executed or not and whether previously stamped or not, is brought to the Collector, and the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of that officer as the duty (if any) with which it is chargeable, and pays a fee of such amount (not exceeding fifteen rupees and not less than five rupees) as the Collector may in each case direct, the Collector shall determine the duty (if any) with which, in his judgment the instrument is chargeable. (2) For this purpose the Collector may require to be furnished with an abstract of the instrument, and also with such affidavit or other evidence as he may deem necessary to prove that all the facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty, or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, are fully and truly set forth therein and may refuse to proceed upon any such application until such abstract and evidence have been furnished accordingly. "a reading of provisions in Section 31 of the Stamp Act would disclose that it applies to those instruments whether executed or not which are brought before the Collector and the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of the Collector as to the duty if any which is chargeable on payment of the prescribed fee. The Collector is then authorised to determine the duty, if any, with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable. Obviously, this applies to a case where any person on his own desires to obtain the adjudication of the Collector as to the stamp duty payable on a document. This cannot be considered as a remedy in a situation