THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.444 of 2006 ORDER: The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) allotted an extent of Ac.14.42 cents of land, in Sy.Nos.816 to 821 of Tookivakam Village, Renigunta Mandal, in favour of M/s The India Tin Industries Limited, IDA, Tirupati, for the purpose of establishing an Industry. The allottee has also established the Industry. However, the Industry on the plot is said to have become sick. After obtaining permission from the Corporation, the allottee sold the property in favour of the petitioner, for a consideration of Rs.1,10,000,00/-. A sale deed executed on 19-12-2003 was presented before the 2nd respondent for registration. Not being satisfied with the stamp duty and registration charges paid by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent referred the matter to the District Registrar, the 1st respondent. The latter conducted inspection; made verification of the comparative sales, and through proceedings dated 11-11-2005 held that the petitioner has to pay further amount of Rs.70,01,431/- towards deficit stamp duty, and Rs.3,18,250/- towards registration fee. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed, raising objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It has also been stated that a detailed inspection was conducted and extensive discussion was undertaken, before determining the proper stamp duty and registration charges for the land. Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent did not take into account the fact that the land is earmarked for industrial purpose, and the sale or purchase of land for other purposes cannot be compared with the sale, in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the 1st respondent proceeded on hypothetical basis, and that no objectivity was exhibited by him. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy, by way of appeal under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’). He further submits that the 2nd respondent has arrived at a just and proper conclusion, and that no exception can be taken to the impugned order. The petitioner has urged several grounds in support of its contention, that the order passed by the 1st respondent is not legal and correct. This Court is not inclined to consider the same, at this stage. The matter was referred by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, under Section 47–A of the Act. That very provision mandates that any person aggrieved by the value determined in such a reference, may avail the remedy of appeal, before a Civil Court. It may be true that there exists a condition as to pre-deposit of half of the disputed amount, for availing the remedy of appeal. That, however, cannot be a ground to skip the remedy and to file writ petition. As a matter of fact, it would be in the interest of the petitioner, that a remedy of appeal is availed. The reason is that, it would be entitled to urge all the grounds, touching on facts and law, as well as to adduce evidence before the Appellate Authority. The scope of interference in a writ petition is very limited. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. It is directed that, in case the petitioner presents the appeal within six weeks from today, it shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority, without raising any objection as to limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.10-02-2010. KO