V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE Writ Appeal by the Commissioner and Inspector General of registration and Stamps and the Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, is brought under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 20631 of 1996.

( 2 ) THE learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents-appellants to register the sale document taking the value shown in the Basic Value Register prior to 1-8-1996 as the market value of the property in question.

( 3 ) FACTS in brief are as under: The petitioner-respondent, having purchased plot No. 296, admeasuring 480 Sq. Yds. , at Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills, hyderabad, presented the sale document on 9-8-1996 before the Sub-Registrar, banjara Hills, the 1st appellant herein. The petitioner-respondent set out the market value of the plot at Rs. 6,01,000/- on the basis of the value fixed in the Basic Value Register. The Sub-Registrar has passed the receipt and given no. P 1344/96 to the document, pending registration of the document. On 9-9-1996 the Sub-Registrar sent a letter No. 280/96 directing the petitioner-respondent to appear before him and when appeared he had informed the petitioner-respondent to pay the deficit stamp duty and registration charges based upon the enhanced market value of the said property, which was enhanced with effect from 1-8-1996 in pursuance of the proceedings dated 31-7-96 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, 2nd appellant herein. Questioning the proceedings dt. 31-7-96 as illegal and void, the petitioner-respondent filed the above writ petition on the ground that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to enhance the market value of the property in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and secondly when once sale documents have been executed on the market value prevailing, the Sub-Registrar ought to have registered the document without insisting upon payment of the deficit stamp duty on the basis of the enhanced market value.

( 4 ) THE Sub-Registrar filed a detailed counter-affidavit and resisted the plea of the petitioner-respondent. It is his case that taking into consideration the rectification Anomalies Committee s guidelines and Revised Market value guidelines dt. 31-7-1996 and also having regard to the transactions that were held during the period from January to May, 1996 and also taking into consideration the guidelines communicated by the Government, he has come to the conclusion that the market-value mentioned in the instrument was not properly set forth and hence he has referred the matter to the Collector under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, the Act ). The Sub-Registrar has not withheld the Registration of the document, as alleged, but he has only impounded the document for reference to the collector. Since the petitioner-respondent refused to pay the deficit stamp duty the matter has been referred to the Collector. The petitioner-respondent has got a remedy under Sec. 47-A of the Act to approach the Collector for determination of the proper market value and also if still aggrieved by the order of the Collector, has got a remedy of appeal under sub-sec. (4) of sec. 47-A of the Act to the Civil Court. Thus, the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of availability of adequate alternative remedy.

( 5 ) LEARNED single Judge of this Court accepted the contention that the subsequent revision of the values in the Basic Value Register was not relevant for the purpose of registering the sale documents presented by the petitioner- respondent and accordingly allowed the writ petition directing the Sub- registrar to register the document on the basis of the values mentioned in the Basic Value Register prior to 1-8-1996.

( 6 ) LEARNED Government Pleader appearing for the appellants herein conten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document