THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24 of 2007 Dated: 03.01.2007 Between: Peela Ravindra and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Sub-Registrar, Anakapalli, and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.24 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved by the proceedings/order of the second respondent dated 27.10.2006, whereunder while determining the market value for the purpose of stamp duty under a document submitted by the petitioners, the second respondent directed the first respondent to collect market value at the rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre for both items of the properties which was subject matter of pending document No.P.148/2006. Inter alia, it is contended that the impugned order is vitiated by non- compliance with the provisions of Section 47-A (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act, for brevity) read with Rule 4(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 (hereafter called, the Rules). Substantiating the submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that when the provisions require a notice of clear twenty-one days, the second respondent passed orders within a period of ten days after issue of notice dated 29.09.2006. This submission is refuted by the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Sub-Section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act requires the District Registrar to give an opportunity of making their representation to the parties to the document referred by the Registering Authority for determination of stamp duty and determine the market value after holding enquiry as may be prescribed under the Rules. The Rules referred to hereinabove contemplate the procedure on receipt of a reference under Sub-Section (1) of Section 47- A of the Act. 4. Procedure on receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A:- (1) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) of Sec.47-A accompanied by a statement in Form-I from a registering officer, the Collector shall issue a notice in Form No.II. (a) to every person by whom; and (b) to every person in whose favour the instrument has been executed informing him of the receipt of the reference and asking him to submit to him in writing his representation, if any, to show that the market value of the property or the consideration thereof has been truly set forth in the instrument, and also to produce all evidence that he has in support of his representation, within twenty-one days from the date of service of the notice; (c) The Collector shall also maintain office-wise register of references received from each registering officer in Form-V. Paraphrasing the above provision it becomes clear that after receiving the reference, the Registrar (Collector) shall issue a notice in Form II to every person by whom and to every person in whose favour the instrument has been executed. Such notice shall inform the receipt of reference and seek a report in writing to show the market value of the property and also produce all evidence that such person has in support of the representation. While doing so, the Registrar is required to give twenty- one days notice from the date of service of notice to the person to make a representation along with evidence. It does not, however, compel the Registrar to wait for twenty-one days after issue of notice. It only enables the person to make representation within twenty-one days and in a given case, if a person makes representation and also files evidence recording market value of the property, nothing prevents the Registrar to decide the matter immediately even before the expiry of twenty-one days from the date of issue of notice. The words ‘within twenty-one days” on a plain interpretation would show that there is no requirement to wait for twenty-one days by the Registrar before passing an order determining the market value. In this case, the petitioners submitted a representation on 09.10.2006 and the second respondent passed orders on 27.10.2006. Even here also the second respondent passed orders almost a month after the date of issue of notice dated 29.09.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioners nextly contended that the determination of the market value at Rs.6,00,000/- per acre is arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles. At this stage, this question cannot be decided. There is no denial that under Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 47-A of the Act, a person aggrieved by an order of Registrar has an effective remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner may agitate all other grounds before the appellate authority i.e., the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, by filing an appeal. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to do so. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 03rd January, 2007 ghn