ORDER :

1. Questioning the impugned notice dated 02.09.2009 and the very impugned circular memo dated 29.05.2007 as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 2(10) and Article 46 and 49 of Schedule 1A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the present writ petition is filed.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner’s mother Smt.Lalita Bai inherited a total extent of house property bearing No.3191 (old) H.No.7-2-533 to 7-2-546 (new) admeasuring 421 sq.yds., at Buruguchetty Bazar, Secunderabad from her maternal grandparents under a Deed of Settlement vide Doc.No.1142 of 1956. Thereafter, petitioner’s mother died on 30.08.1988 leaving behind 5 sons and 4 daughters. Petitioner is the 5th son and whereabouts of 3^rd son is not known since long time. Thereafter, a portion of the property inherited by the petitioner was released in favour of wife of 3^rd son under deed of partial partition registered vide Doc.No.1795/2008 dated 17.10.2008. It is further submitted that the 3^rd sister Smt.Usha Khatri died on 19.04.1994 leaving behind two legal heirs. It is further submitted that petitioner’s eldest brother viz., Sri Ananth Prasad along with 4 sisters, 2 legal heirs of 3^rd sister who are all 8 co-owners have executed a release deed dated 18.10.2008 vide Doc.No.1831/2008 in favour of petitioner herein; and 2 brothers of petitioner retained their respective portions. Thereafter, the said release deed was presented before respondent No.3 for registration.

3. Respondent No.3 after examination of the entire contents of the documents and after having satisfied that the said deed was released in favour of petitioner, imposed the duty as contemplated under Article 46 of Schedule 1A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioner further submits that as per the recitals of the document, market value was assessed by the petitioner at Rs.30,00,000/-, whereas respondent No.3 after verifying the specifications of the property did not agree with the market value mentioned by the petitioner and fixed a market value of Rs.45,00,000/- and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,07,450/- as stamp duty and registration charges and on payment of the same, the document was registered and released in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.3 within 10 days of registration of the document, based on an internal audit, issued notice dated 02.09.2009 under Article 41A of Schedule IA of Stamp Duty on Certain Instruments under the Stamp (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1922 to the petitioner claiming a deficit stamp duty of Rs.9,02,025/-.

4. Subsequently, petitioner approached respondent No.3 and stated that the subject document was a relinquishment deed which is between family members and not a sale deed. However, without hearing the contention of the petitioner, respondent No.1 on 02.09.2009, has calculated the market value of the subject property at Rs.1,06,25,000/- and claimed stamp duty of Rs.9,02,025/. Thereafter, petitioner approached respondent No.1 and explained the contents of the documents, however, respondent No.1 clearly stated that said notice under Article 41A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was issued based on the circular issued by respondent No.2 on 29.05.2007 and hence insisted the petitioner either to pay the deficit stamp duty or the matter will be disposed of on merits and further action will be taken to recover the deficit stamp duty under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act. Having left with no other option, petitioner had given an undertaking to pay the entire deficit stamp duty. It is further submitted that the said undertaking was given under coercion and threat of complications for the reason that after the release deed got registered, petitioner got entered into a Development Agreement dated 08.12.2008 with M/s.Sneha Constructions and also demolished the existing structures. Questioning the said notice dated 02.09.2009 and also the Circular dated 29.05.2007, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Mr.Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senio