THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.11382 OF 2013

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India seeking the following relief/s:-

“….to issue a writ order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings dt.30.03.2013 whereby determining deficit stamp duty on unregistered development agreement dt.31.10.2007 and levying penalty at three times on the stamp duty is illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice and law and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to determine the deficit stamp duty on unregistered development agreement as on the date of execution of such development agreement in the

interest of justice and equity and pass....”

2. Heard Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Stamps & Registration)

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. It is contended that a Development agreement for construction of commercial building was executed on 31.10.2007 in order to develop the commercial building in D.No.11-26-195 & 196, situated at MG Road, Warangal with owners Gandrathi Venkatanarayana and others. However, at the time of purchase of the developed flats, sale deed was executed between the land

owners i.e., Gandrathi Venkatanarayana and others and the purchasers i.e., Nahid Fathima, while submitting the sale deed dated 26.10.2012 before the 3^rd respondent the parties filed unregistered development agreement for construction of commercial building/complex, whereas the 3^rd respondent kept the sale deed for registration pending and allotted number P/564/2012 and sent the unregistered development of agreement to the 2^nd respondent for impounding duty determining the stamp duty and penalty in respect of unregistered development agreement, which was executed in favour of the petitioner.

4. It is further contended that the 2^nd respondent impounded the unregistered development agreement for construction of commercial complex and determined the stamp duty under Article 6 ( c) (iii) of schedule (i)(a) at Rs.5,80,511/- and levied penalty three times duly amounting to Rs.23,22,044/- and directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty within 10 days vide notice No.G1/3511/2012, Dt.14.02.2013.

5. It is further contended that pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a representation to 2^nd respondent on

08.03.2013 requesting for indulgence for determining the stamp duty.

6. It is further contended that the 2^nd respondent has not issued any notice to the petitioner before determining the deficit stamp duty and on contrary to law, determined the deficit stamp duty by taking relevant date as on the date of presentation of sale deed i.e., 26.10.2012 instead of the date of execution of development agreement dated 31.10.2007 for which the document was sought to be impounded.

7. Learned senior counsel contended that the tax imposed to be calculated on the basis of the rate when the instrument itself is executed, such instrument for the purpose of determination of deficit stamp in terms of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act cannot relate at the time of presentation of subsequent sale deeds executed in pursuance of such instrument. Learned senior counsel further contended that 2^nd respondent had not given any reason much less no specific reasons were assigned for imposing three times penalty, further, no notice was issued. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Stamps and Registration) vehemently contended that the District Registrar, Warangal directed the party to produce original development agreement, whereas the petitioner had submitted unregistered-development agreement. Through the recitals of the Development Agreement, which was executed by Mr.G.Venkat Narayana and two