A development agreement requires registration and proper documentation; failure to disclose accurate property valuation leads to the assessment of additional stamp duty under the STAMP ACT.

ORDER :

N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.

Questioning the proceedings in Memo No.CC/P.F./2009 dated 02.01.2009 issued by the District Registrar, Nalgonda, whereby the writ petitioners were called upon to pay the deficit stamp duty, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri G. Pedda Babu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.T. Swetha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent. Perused the record.

3. Facts in brief as stated in the Writ Petition are as follows:

Petitioner No.1 submits that he has entered into a registered agreement of sale – cum – General Power of Attorney dated 19.11.2003 registered as document No.7139/2003, with his owners M/s.Kethireddy Rama Narsimha Reddy and others, in respect of house bearing Municipal Nos.5-4-41, 5-4-42, 5-4-43, 5-4-44, 5-4-46, 5-4-47 and 5-4-48 for an extent of 700 Sq. yards, situated at Rashtrapathi Road, Nalgonda Town. The 2nd Petitioner also entered into an Agreement of Sale - cum –General Power of Attorney dated 19-11-2003 registered as document No.7140/2003 with the said owners in respect of house bearing M.No.5-4-45, admeasuring 1250 sq. yards and M.No.5-4-66 and 5-4-66/A, admeasuring 100 Sq. yards after paying the necessary stamp duty and registration charges. Thereafter, the petitioners as the agreement holders and General Power of Attorney holders acting on behalf of the owners jointly developed and sold the built up area to themselves and to third parties in respect of portions thereof. It is further submitted that the agents are also the agreement holders and having agreed to pay the sale consideration to the original owners, the petitioners were conferred with the powers to sell besides other powers by virtue of the registered instrument referred above and the GPAs executed in favour of the petitioners are coupled with interest.

4. It is further submitted that the Respondent issued Proforma-l in terms of para No.III (8) of C & I.G. (R&S) Cir. Memo No.MV6/3391/2004 dated 17.09.2009 stating that during the course of spot inspection of the property dealt within the document registered as document Nos.6029, 6401, 6402, 6403, 6404 and 2318 of 2009, certain variations were noticed and demanded the petitioners to explain various grounds raised therein.

5. It is further submitted that the documents were registered in accordance with the market value certificate issued by the respondent, which relates to the property on the main road and the same valuation was adopted for the same portion of the property vide door bearing No.5-4-51 which is also connected by a road.

6. It is further submitted that petitioners have also sent reply dated 08.10.2009 to the said notice. However, the Respondent without considering the same passed the impugned order dated 02.01.2009 and dispatched on 02.01.2010 demanding payment of Rs.14,91,460/- and granted time till 27-01-2010. The petitioners submits that the said notice (proforma) is bad as the alleged spot inspection was not at all made as per Circular Memo No.MV2/22407/98 dated 22.01.1999 and as such is liable to be set aside and the present Writ Petition is filed apprehending that the respondent is likely to prosecute the petitioners in terms of Sections 27 and 64 of Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 and Section 82 of Indian REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and the rules framed there under. It is further submitted that in the impugned proceedings, respondent had stated that the petitioners do not have pre-existing right over the subject property admeasuring 2050 Sq. yards. However, both the petitioners have developed the prop