B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda, dismissing C. M. ANo. 2 of 1993 on 30-11-1995. The C. M. A. itself is directed against the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Nalgonda, dated : 7-8-1992.

( 2 ) THE facts requiring for the disposal of the C. R. P. may briefly be noted:the petitioner herein purchased house bearing No. 6-4-55/j/d together with land measuring 311 sq. yrds. , situated at Ravindranagar Colony, Nalgonda town from the original owner thereof under a Registered sale-deed dated 27-9-1984 for a consideration of Rs. 75,000,00. The market value of the property is mentioned in the said document is the same as that of the consideration paid by the petitioner herein to the owner. The sale-deed was not only registered by the registering authority, but the same was released in his favour after duly registering the instrument. It appears that the Joint Sub-Registrar-I sent the record pertaining to the said sale-deed dated 27-9-1984 of the petitioner for determining the market value to the Collector. According to the registering authority, the market value as shown in the Basic Register would be Rs. 1,72,800. 00 and the stamp duty liable to be paid thereon is Rs. 17,200. 00; but only Rs. 9. 625. 95 was paid as stamp duty.

( 3 ) THE District Revenue Officer, Nalgonda (for short dro ) issued notices to the petitioner herein under Rule 4 of the A. P. Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules . The record would disclose that the notices were sent to the petitioner from 1989 and finally on 17-6-1992 directing the petitioner to attend the inquiry on 24. 6. 1992. The petitioner did not appear before the DRO and the DRO accordingly passed orders directing the petitioner herein to deposit the stamp duty of Rs. 7,664. 05 fixing the market value of the property at Rs. 1,72,800,00.

( 4 ) THE petitioner thereafter preferred appeal - C. M. A. 2/93 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda, confirmed the order passed by the DRO. Hence this civil revision-petition.

( 5 ) IN this civil revision-petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Satyam Reddy, submits that no notice whatsoever was served upon the petitioner at any time by the DRO and the proceedings are liable to be declared void on this simple ground alone. It is further urged that the reference of the sale-deed by the registering authority for determination of market value of the property is hopelessly time barred and the DRO ought not to have accepted the reference. It is urged that under sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the India Stamp Act, 1899 (for short the Act ) even the Collector suo mom could have exercised the power to call for the instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property mentioned in the instrument within two years from the date of registration. Under those circumstances, the registering authority cannot refer the document beyond the period of two years.

( 6 ) THE learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there is no limitation whatsoever provided under subsection (1) of section 47-A of the Act and limitation of two years applies in case where the Collector proposes to exercise suo motu power under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act. The Registering Authority can exercise power under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A and refer the document at any time for fixing the correct market value.

( 7 ) HAVING regard to the importance of the question, the Court requested Sri M. S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Advocate to assist the Court as amicus curiae.

( 8 ) THE question as to whether the action of the registering authority referring the matter under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act is barred by limitation is not res integra. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Mahajan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document