IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1001 of 2008 Between: 1 Alluri Ramakrishna, S/o.Late Chandraiah, R/o.Pothavaram Nallajarla(M) W.G Dist 2 Alluri Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Late Chandraiah, R/o.Pothavaram Nallajarla(M) W.G Dist 3 Alluri Bhagavannarayana, S/o.Late Chandraiah, R/o.Pothavaram Nallajarla(M) W.G Dist 4 Alluri Lakshmi, W/o.Late Ramachandram, R/o.Pothavaram Nallajarla(M) W.G Dist 5 Alluri Chandra Mohan, W/o.Late Ramachandram, R/o.Pothavaram Nallajarla(M) W.G Dist 6 Duggirala Kanaka Durga, W/o.Seshagiri Rao, R/o.Pothavaram Nallajarla(M) W.G Dist ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Dist Registar, Eluru W.G Dist 2 The Sub-Registrar,Anathapalli, W.G Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ,order or direction,especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dt.8-1-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent as ilegal, arbitrary,violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Indian Act, 1899 and set aside the notice dt.8-1-2008 and direct the 2nd respondent to register and release the document dt.24-9-2007 vide 24-9-2007 vide No.48/07 in the office of the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 1001 of 2008 Order: The petitioners state that they executed a deed of partition among themselves with regard to their joint family properties on 24.09.2007 and presented the same before the 2nd respondent for registration, and the same was kept pending registration, vide document No. 48/2007. Later on, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 08.01.2008 stating that as per the orders dated 24.10.2007 of the District Registrar, the properties mentioned in schedule A, B, C, D, and E (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) of the document are treated as partition and the properties mentioned in schedule F and G (6 and 7) of the document are treated as gift settlement, and directed the petitioners to pay stamp duty of 1% on the schedule A, B, C, D and E properties and 6% on the schedule F and G properties. Aggrieved by the said notice to the extent of demanding them to pay stamp duty of 6% on the schedule F and G properties, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the judgment of this Court passed in similar Writ Petition No. 8711 of 2007, the respondents cannot treat the schedule F and G (6 and 7) properties of the document as gift settlement, and that the action of the 2nd respondent in treating the said properties as gift settlement and imposing stamp duty of 6% on the said properties is illegal and bad. Though the writ petition was admitted on 24.01.2008 and in spite of granting sufficient time, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents so far. However, when the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that subsequent to the orders of this Court passed in similar Writ Petition No. 8711 of 2007, the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hydeabad, has reconsidered the issue and issued circular memo dated 11.02.2008 (copy of which is produced), clarifying that the concessional rate of 1% is applicable to all the partitions and releases if the parties to the document are family members, including widowed mother, unmarried daughters/sisters, widowed wife and/or children of deceased brother, widower and/or children of deceased sister, grand parents, adoptive parent etc., without any other restriction. She further submits that in view of the said circular, the petitioners need not pay stamp duty of 6% on the properties mentioned in schedule F and G (6 and 7) of the document. In view of the said submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent to the extent of demanding the petitioners to pay stamp duty of 6% on the schedule F and G (6 and 7) properties of the document cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order to the extent of demanding the petitioners to pay stamp duty of 6% on the schedule F and G (6 and 7) properties of the document is set aside. The respondents are directed to collect stamp duty of 1% on all the properties mentioned in the document dated 24.09.2007, and on payment of such stamp duty by the petitioners, the respondents shall process the document and release the same to the petitioners. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 28.02.2008 Nsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}