THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR W.P.No.14475 OF 2009

ORDER:

Heard Sri S. Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent No.1, Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. The present writ petition is filed seeking a direction against the respondents to take action on the complaint dated 22.11.2008 given by the petitioner to respondent No.1 who is the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration for Stamps.

3. The facts enumerated from the record are that the petitioner entered into the agreement for purchase of land admeasuring 88.5 Ankanams situated at Pappulaveedhi main road vide agreement dated 01.08.1981 from respondent No.6 along with his brother and his mother and paid the total sale consideration as per the agreement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that two of the vendors executed registered sale deeds for 2/3^rd of the subject property and when they postponed the execution of the sale deeds for the remaining extent of land on account of various reasons, the petitioner filed suit for specific performance before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore on 26.12.2008. However, the petitioner came to know that respondent No.6 sold the remaining 1/3rd of the land to respondent Nos.7 and 8 vide registered sale deed No.2014 of 2008 dated 08.05.2008. The petitioner upon obtaining a copy of the sale deed, found that respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 in collusion with respondent No.3 made incorrect recitals in the deed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a complaint before respondent No.1 on 22.11.2008. When respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not take any action or initiate prosecution, the petitioner approached before this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking to direct to the respondent to take action in pursuant to the complaint lodged on 22.11.2008.

5. On the other hand, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter and put to strict proof of all the allegations stating that out of the total extent of land agreed to be purchased by the petitioner, some extent was registered in favour of the petitioner and remaining site was not registered and as per Section 27 of the Stamp Act, if any, the market value of the property and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of any instrument with the duty or amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, shall be fully and truly set forth therein by the executing parties of the documents. It is further contended that as per Circular No.38 dated 22.01.1999 of the Commissioner and Inspector General under CARD system after introduction of computerization in the process of registration of documents, it is the responsibility of the Registering officer for the omissions and commissions relating to the following aspects (a) Classification of the documents (b) validation of the data on the registration check slip (c) correct application of the market value guidelines through the CARD.

6. The District Registrar, Nellore has conducted enquiry into the allegation made by the petitioner and submitted a report to the Commissioner and Inspector General that as per the situation of the property which is lying in Pappulaveedhi valuing Rs.14,300/- per Sq.yard and determining the deficit stamp and fees, thereafter initiating action for recovery of the Stamp duty under Section 41A of the Indian Stamp Act.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 further contended that while the case is under process for collection of stamp duty the petitioner has made baseless allegation that respondent No.3 colluded with the registering public in registering the document No.2014 of 2008 which is not correct. Whereas, upon verification of the link documents and market value as per the CARD process, there is no variation, therefore the Sub Registrar ac