Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 410
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
Mallikarjuna Kondapaneni, S/o. Subbaramaiah - Appellant
Versus
The State of AP, Department of Stamps and Registration, Rep.by its Principal
Secretary - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 298 of 2025
Decided on : 20-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri P. Sai Surya Teja
For the Respondents: Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, Gp For Registration And Stamps
Stamp duty and registration fees for auctioned properties must be based on auction value, not market value, as established by Supreme Court precedents.
Headnote:
(A) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Stamp Act - The petitioners challenged the Sub-Registrar's directive to pay stamp duty on market value instead of auction value of Rs.2,17,50,000/- for property purchased in auction. The court emphasized that stamp duty must be based on auction value as per established law. (Paras 2, 3, 11, 25)
(B) Constitutional Law - Article 141 and 144 - The executive is bound to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court, ensuring compliance with binding precedents. (Paras 18, 20)
(C) Legal Consequences - The court highlighted the necessity for the executive to adhere to judicial orders to prevent unnecessary litigation. (Paras 20, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners successfully bid for property at an auction conducted by Canara Bank, but the Sub-Registrar insisted on stamp duty based on market value instead of the auction price.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that stamp duty and registration fees should be based on the auction value as per the Sale Certificate.
Issues: The main issues were whether stamp duty should be based on auction value or market value, and the executive's duty to follow Supreme Court precedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the executive must comply with the law as declared by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the binding nature of judicial precedents.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitioners participated in auction (Para 2) |
| 2. auction details and payment (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. counsel's submission on legality (Para 5) |
| 4. determination of stamp duty payment (Para 7) |
| 5. executive's duty to follow law (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. writ petition allowed (Para 25) |
| 7. training for officials (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
ORDER :
Heard Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government for Stamps &Registration appearing for all the Respondents
2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:
“It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent, Sub-Registrar, Tirupathi RO, in directing the petitioners to pay the stamp duty (@6.5%) and registration fee (@1%) on market value of the property instead of the Value of the Sale Certificate/Auction Value of Rs.2,17,50,000/- as the same is contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary and violative of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and seeking a consequential direction to the 4th respondent Sub-Registrar, Tirupathi RO to receive, register and release the Sale Certificate/Deed of Sale executed by the Canara Bank in favour of the petitioners in respect of the property bearing Shop Nos.001 Part, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 313A, 314 and 501 of Central Park Commercial Complex together with undivided share of land admeasuring 247.46 Sq Yards along with 35% of Parking situated in Tirupathi Town, Municipal 13th ward, Reddy and Reddy Colony area, No.29 Village Accounts, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tiruapthi Sub-District, Sri Balaji Registration District [hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject property], without insisting payment of stamp duty (@6.5%) and registration fee (@1%) on market value of the property and by accepting the stamp duty on the Value of the Sale Certificate which is Rs.2,17,50,000/- and to pass such other and further orders.”
3. The facts, as stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, are that the Specialized Asset Recovery and Management Branch of Canara Bank, Tirupati initiated the Proceedings under the provisions of Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for recovery of the dues from the borrower and issued e- Auction Notice for the sale of subject property on 05.12.2024 indicating that the e-Auction would be conducted on 23.12.2024; that on the scheduled date of e- Auction i.e., on 23.12.2024, the Writ Petitioners herein have participated and were declared as successful bidders for an amount of Rs.2,17,50,000/- (upset price was fixed as Rs.2,17,00,000/-); that the Writ Petitioners have paid the EMD as well as 25% of the sale amount of a sum of Rs.54,37,500/- on the same date; that the Writ Petitioners have also complied with all the other conditions and have thereafter paid the entire auction amount to Canara Bank, Tirupati and have obtained the Sale Certificate on 30.12.2024; that the Writ Petitioners approached the Sub-Registrar, Tirupati (Respondent No.4) for registration of the Sale Certificate; whereas, the Respondent No.4 directed the Writ Petitioners to pay the stamp duty and registration fee on the market value of the subject property; that the Respondent No.4 had stated that the registration will not be permissible unless the stamp duty and the registration fee is paid on the market value of the property and not on the auction value; that the Respondent No.4 had also issued Market Value Certificate of the subject property indicating that the total value of the subject property is Rs.3,65,76,500/- (Three crores sixty five lakhs seventy six thousand five hundred).
4. Having been aggrieved of the stand taken by the Respondent No.4 to the effect that the registration would be
