THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7037 of 2010 29.3.2010 Between: Sunkara Sivaram, S/o.Sudharsana Rao …Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its’ Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7037 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner who is statedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.1.05 in R.S.No.52/4 allegedly entered into an agreement of sale with third respondent, who instituted O.S.No.22 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, for specific performance of agreement of sale. Petitioner denied execution of agreement and has been contesting the suit. While the suit was pending, petitioner filed I.A.No.86 of 2009 to determine the admissibility of alleged agreement of sale dated 22.3.2006. At that stage, learned District Judge impounded the document and sent it to second respondent for levy and collection of appropriate stamp duty. In obedience thereto, second respondent issued a show cause notice to petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 on 27.12.2009 to explain as to why deficit stamp duty of Rs.20,000/- and penalty of ten times should not be levied. It appears that third respondent did not submit any explanation. Therefore, second respondent passed orders on 19.1.2010 levying a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards stamp duty and penalty of Rs.10,000/- purporting to exercise of power under Section 40 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act). Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. The counsel for petitioner submits that second respondent grossly erred in deviating from the show cause notice. In that having proposed penalty of ten times and deficit stamp duty, second respondent levied only Rs.10,000/- as penalty. This according to the counsel is violation of principles of natural justice. The submission is recorded for in limine rejection for the reason that under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act, discretion is vested in the Collector (second respondent) for collection of stamp duty and to levy penalty of five rupees or an amount not exceeding ten times of proper stamp duty. When such power inheres in the second respondent, mere proposal mentioned in the show cause notice does not bar him to keep in view Section 40(1)(b) of the Act and impose a lesser penalty. This Court is also convinced that petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the same. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ March 29, 2010. (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS