THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE JUKANTI ANIL KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1945 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more appropriately one in the nature of Mandamus declaring action of respondent 2nd and 3rd respondent refuse to impounding by collecting stamp duty as per Indian Stamp Act of instrument Absolute agreement of sale dated 20.11.2007 which is violating of fundamental of rights Art 21 and Art 300A, The Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondent No.2 and 3, Receive stamp duty and impound documents Absolute agreement of sale dated 20.11.2007 as per Indian Stamp Act and pass such other relief or reliefs...”

2. On 04.09.2025, there was no appearance on behalf of petitioner. On 08.09.2025, matter was posted under the caption ‘for orders’ on 15.09.2025. On 15.09.2025, none appeared for petitioner and matter was posted to 16.09.2025. On 16.09.2025, there was no appearance for petitioner and hence the matter was posted to 17.09.2025 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. On 17.09.2025, there was no appearance, this Court appointed Ms.Rajasri Reddy Dwarampudi, a young budding lawyer as Amicus to assist the Court and to make submissions.

3. Heard Ms.Rajasri Reddy Dwarampudi was appointed as Amicus on behalf of petitioner, by order dated 17.09.2025, as the counsel for petitioner did not represent the matter on number of occasions.

4. Petitioner in his affidavit claims that he purchased a house bearing Municipal No.6-3-1100/3/S in TS No.32/2, Survey No.223 of Khairatabad Village, admeasuring 224 sq. yards by an absolute agreement of sale, dated 20.11.2007. That the petitioner approached respondent No.2 (office of District Collector) on 11.01.2021, presented the absolute agreement of sale for payment of stamp duty and impounding the instrument. It is alleged that respondent No.2 refused and asked the petitioner to approach respondent No.3 (District Registrar-cum-Sub Registrar) and present the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that the rejection is in violation of Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for shot, ‘the Act’) and Registration Act, 1908.

5. Learned Amicus submitted that the nomenclature of deed is not the criteria, but the recitals of the deed have to be looked into, to ascertain/know the nature of the deed. Pointing to Clauses 1 and 2 of the deed [dated 20.11.2007 (Pg.No.13)], it is submitted by learned Amicus that entire sale consideration of Rs.18,50,000/- was paid and that the vendor admitted and acknowledged the receipt of amounts. It is further submitted that pursuant to payment and acceptance, vacant physical possession of the schedule property was delivered. Hence, in view of the fulfillment of the twin requirements, the said deed can be termed as an absolute deed of sale. That it was presented to the office of respondent No.2 on 11.01.2021 for payment of stamp duty and impounding. That it was rejected on the ground that Government restricted not to impound nor receive stamp duty of old documents.

6. It is submitted that as per Section 33 of the Act, it is the duty of the Office of Collector to impound the instrument presented, if it is not duly, insufficiently stamped. The mandate under Section 33 of the Act, 1899, is to be adhered. That, the said deed cannot be termed as invalid for want of duty. Learned counsel submitted that Indian Stamp Act is a piece of fiscal legislation, the same being enacted to ensure revenue for the State and has to be interpreted strictly.

7. It is submitted that in Seetharam Shetty v. Monappa Shetty1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the object of the Act was to secure revenue on insufficiently stamped instruments. To buttress the contention, learned counsel invited attention of this Court to paragraph No.17 of the Judgment, which reads as follows:

“The object of the Act is not to exclude evidence or to enable parties to avoid obligations on technical grounds. Rather, the object is to obtain revenue even from s