IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Dated 6^th May, 2026.

Between:

Mohd. Jahangir … Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and (2) others.

… Respondents

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in confirming the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 13.11.2023, vide order dated

20.04.2024, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri R.A. Achyutanand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Ms. S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Stamps and Registration, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.1038 of 2010 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for brevity, ‘the trial Court’), against the respondent-State and others, seeking a perpetual injunction, restraining them from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment with the suit schedule property, and also, cancellation of the wrong entries in the revenue records, survey and land records, by deleting the word ‘Kharif Khata’, and entering the petitioner’s name. During the course of trial, the petitioner filed a document titled Relinquishment Deed dated 26.11.2002, however, since it was not engrossed on a stamp paper, the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court for referring the document for adjudication and impounding by collecting the stamp duty. The said application was allowed by the trial Court, and vide letter dated 12.01.2023, and similar letters dated 04.02.2023 and 02.08.2023, called upon respondent No.3 to adjudicate the said document. As such, respondent No.3 issued a notice to the petitioner, calling for his objections as to why the stamp duty along with ten times penalty shall not be levied upon him. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 04.11.2023, requesting reduction of the exorbitant penalty of ten times to one time. However, despite receiving the said representation, even without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering his objections, respondent No.3 issued the impugned Memo dated 13.11.2023, imposing upon the petitioner the deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,12,175/-, along with (9) times’ penalty to a tune of Rs.19,09,575/-, totaling Rs.21,21,750/-, by stating that the subject property is a high potential one with huge extent of 3354 sq.yds., in a commercial locality, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the provisions under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (for short, ‘the Act, 1899’). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 under Section 41-A(3) of the Act, 1899, raising several grounds, including the citations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and requested to set aside the order dated 13.11.2023. The petitioner had also filed his written submissions on 03.04.2024. However, without considering any of the contentions urged by the petitioner, and the reasonableness as well as the correctness of the order passed by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 20.04.2024, in a cryptic manner, confirming the order passed by respondent No.3.

4. It is further submitted that the alleged considerations of value and extent of the property being high and huge, and also the high potential of the subject property, are irrelevant considerations in the determination of reasonableness of the imposition of penalty. However, all of these considerations were taken into consideration by respondent No.3, who arrived at a conclusion to impose the deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,12,175/-, which according to respondent No.2, is not challenged and only the penalty of (9) times is challenged. It is submitted that respondent No.1, while passing the impugned order dated 20.04.2024, appears