Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 1293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
S.V. Bhatt, J.
K. Rameswara Reddy – Appellant
Vs.
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 20666 of 2004
Decided On: 31.10.2014
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: K. Somakonda Reddy
For Respondents/Defendant: G.P.
Headnote:
Indian Stamps Act, 1899 - Sections 41-A and 47-A - Petitioner assails orders and Proceeding as illegal and without jurisdiction - Writ prayer presents for consideration of scope leading to filing of writ petition are not in dispute and short question that arises for consideration is binding nature of an order passed of Act by respondent and whether order can be reviewed by respondent Act - Sale deed was executed by one in favor of petitioner for premises bearing Door No s District was presented for registration before Sub Registrar kept the document with him pending registration for determination of value of property shown in document and stamp duty payable - Sub Registrar referred document to respondent for consideration and decision - Respondent through proceedings passed an order - Respondent on verification of material available on record and report submitted by Sub Registrar determined the valuation of property covered by sale deed - respondent in purported exercise of power - Petitioner alleging that registration of property covered by document – Held, Jurisdiction of Act is applicable where stamp duty is not levied or short levied on a document already registered provides for limitation for taking action as five years and in cases of fraud collusion within years from date of registration - Respondent by issuing notice for all purposes is re-determining his own value by exercising power of Act Either by a plain reading or combined reading of Act does not confer power on respondent to review or re-determine his final of Act - Contemplated by Act are entirely different and distinct from envisaged by Act - If re-determination final orders is admitted in favor of department then object of both in recovering deficit stamp duty is lost list is taken up for decision on reference of sub Registrar - Petition allowed (Para 13)
S.V. Bhatt, J.
1. The petitioner assails orders of the 1st and Proceeding Nos. CCRAI/16738/2001 dated 20.03.2004 and RCG6/P10/NDK/91 dated 16.10.2000 respectively, as illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. The writ prayer presents for consideration of scope of Sections 41-A and 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act').
3. The circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition are not in dispute and the short question that arises for consideration is the binding nature of an order passed under Section 47-A of the Act by the 2nd respondent and whether the order under Section 47-A can be reviewed by 2nd respondent under Section 41-A of the Act. The circumstances are as follows:
4. On 30.09.1991, sale deed was executed by one M. Satyanarayana in favour of petitioner for the premises bearing Door Nos. 12/D, D1, D2 and D3 in Nandikotkur, Kurnool District, was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Nandikotkur. The Sub Registrar, Nandikotkur kept the document with him pending registration for determination of value of the property shown in the document and the stamp duty payable thereon. The Sub Registrar, Nandikotkur referred the document to 2nd respondent for consideration and decision under Section 47-A of the Act. The 2nd respondent through proceedings No. RCG6/P10/NDK/91 dated 03.12.1991 passed an order under Section 47-A(2) of the Act. The 2nd respondent on verification of the material available on record and report submitted by the Sub Registrar, Nandikotkur determined the valuation of property covered by sale deed dated 30.09.1991 as Rs. 5,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent directed payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs. 11,000/- and registration fee of Rs. 500/- for the enhanced value. The petitioner claims to have complied with the decision and on 23.12.1991 the Sub Registrar, Nandikotkur registered the sale deed. Thus the matter has attained finality.
5. The 2nd respondent in purported exercise of the power under Section 41-A of the Act issued notices dated 12.06.2000, 04.07.2000 and 12.09.2000 to the petitioner alleging that the registration of property covered by document No. 2051/91 is not properly valued and the market value as on the date of execution of registration is valued at Rs. 10,00,000/-. The petitioner filed objections dated 22.09.2000 resisting the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 41-A of the Act both in fact and law. I am not considering the detailed explanation offered by the petitioner, for the outcome of the writ petition is dependant on the answer to the legal objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The 2nd respondent through proceedings No. RCG6/P10/NDK/91 dated 16.10.1991 re-determined the market value of the property covered by document No. 2051/91 registered on 23.12.1991 and also the stamp duty payable on the re determined value. The effect of the finding of 2nd respondent is that the market value of the property covered by document No. 2051/91 is enhanced from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 10.62,720/- and the difference of stamp duty as Rs. 64,715/-. The petitioner availed the remedy of the appeal before the 1st respondent and through proceedings No. CCRAI/16738/2001 dated 20.03.2001, the appeal is dismissed thereby confirming the order dated 16.10.2000. Hence, the writ petition.
7. Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to re-determine his decision on market valuation or stamp duty payable under Section 47-A of the Act and according to the scheme of Section 47-A, if the department had a reason that the determination of the 2nd respondent at the first instance is not reflecting either the correct market value or correct stamp duty payable on the instrument, the department if aggrieved it ought to have pursued the remedy provided for under Section 47-A(4) of the Act as provided under Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Prevention Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules'
