IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6322 of 2001 Between: P.Karunakar Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, R/o. Karlapudi Village, Kota Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur Region, Gudur, Nellore District. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Kota, Kota Mandal, Nellore District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI P.RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in levying and collecting a sum of Rs.25,600/- towards stamp duty and penalty for impounding of agreement of sale dated 21-03-1997 by fixing the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to refund the amount calculated and collected over and above the basic value of Rs.24,750/- per acre. Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. At the instance of the petitioner, agreement of sale dated 21-03-1997, which evinced delivery of possession of land admeasuring Acs.7.20 cents in Survey No.50-A of Karlapudi Village, Kota Mandal, Nellore District in favour of the petitioner, was impounded by respondent No.2 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner paid the sum of Rs.21,600/- towards stamp duty and Rs.4,000/- towards penalty, on the basis of the market value of Rs.50,000/- per acre. Thereafter, the petitioner got the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in his favour. In the present writ petition, the petitioner averred that in the pattadar passbooks and title deeds, the respondents have shown the basic value of the land as Rs.24,750/- per acre and therefore, he has called in question the action of the respondents in recovering the stamp duty treating the market value of the land as Rs.50,000/- per acre. Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the valuation shown by the respondents in the pattadar passbooks and title deeds was Rs.24,750/- per acre, there is no justification for them to collect stamp duty and penalty by fixing the value of the land at Rs.50,000/- per acre. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the basic value register does not reflect the true market value and therefore, there is no illegality in the action of the respondents in treating the market value of the land at Rs.50,000/- per acre. Section 47-A of the Act empowers the registering authority to refer any document improperly stamped for the purpose of impounding the same to the Revenue authorities. The Revenue authorities shall, then, determine the market value of the land for the purpose of calculating proper stamp duty and penalty. The Andhra Pradesh Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 1998 prescribe the procedure for ascertaining the market value. These provisions do not envisage fixing of market value on the basis of the basic value register. While the basic value register stands as a guide for certain purposes under the Registration Act, the market value is always not reflected from the value shown in the basic value register. The market value keeps fluctuating depending upon the market conditions and if the basic value register is not updated, according to these fluctuations, the authorities are not precluded from ascertaining the true market value prevailing at the time of impounding of the document. Therefore, I do not find any reason to accept the plea of the petitioner that the market value prevailing at the time of impounding of the document was only Rs.24,750/-. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents asserted that on a proper verification of the market value, respondent No.2 arrived at Rs.50,000/- per acre. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to direct refund of the alleged excess stamp duty collected from the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th March,2009 vrn