THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No. 1335 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare proceedings No.CCRA1/16798 dated 03.02.2004 passed by the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary. Heard both the learned counsel. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased various plots of land in survey Nos. 196, 197, 198, 200, 201/1 and 204 of Moosapet Village, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy district during the year 1996 under various documents. At the time of registration, the Sub Registrar, Kukatpally referred instrument No. P-1498/96 executed on 13.06.1996 by A.M. Khusro and others in favour of B.D. Rao to the District Registrar and Collector-second respondent under Section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Act”) to determine the market value of the said land. Thereupon, the second respondent issued proceedings No. 3122/47-A/96 dated 26.06.1996 under Section 47-A of the Act determining the market value at the rate of Rs.200/- per square yard keeping in view the location and the utility of the land. The order also contains that as per the report submitted in Form-I by the Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally, the market value of the land bearing survey Nos. 196, 197, 198, 200, 201/1 and 204 of Moosapet village is at Rs.300/- per square yard, but the purchasers have adopted the market value at the rate of Rs.150/- per square yard. It is stated that the vendee covered by the said instrument No. P-1498/96 agreed for payment of stamp duty based on the market value i.e, Rs.200/- per square yard, paid the same and got the document released. But, so far as the documents of the petitioners are concerned, proceedings were initiated under Section 41-A of the Act and the petitioners were directed to pay the deficit stamp duty. It is stated that whether the deficit stamp duty is calculated on the basis of market value at the rate of Rs.200/- or Rs.300/- per square yard is not known. But, according to the Government Pleader, the deficit stamp duty was calculated on the basis of market value at the rate of Rs.300/- per square yard. Learned Government Pleader submits that under Section 47-A of the Act where the instrument of conveyance is under valued, the Sub Registrar while registering the instrument of conveyance has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may keep pending such instrument, and refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value of said property for proper payment of duty and the procedure to be followed by the Collector is mentioned under Section 47-A (2) and (3) of the Act and the appeal is provided under sub section 4 . It is stated at the instance of the petitioners that at no point of time, the documents of the petitioners were referred under Section 47- A of the Act but independent proceedings were initiated under Section 41-A of the Act. If any instrument chargeable with duty has not been duly stamped and registered by the registering authority by mistake, the Collector may, within five years from the date of registration is entitled to serve a notice on the person who is liable to pay the deficit stamp duty. It is stated that as against the proceedings of the Collector under Section 41-A of the Act in Form No. II, an appeal is provided to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. Accordingly, the appeal was filed before the said authority and the arguments were advanced by the petitioners before Sri Veerabhadraiah. He has heard matter and reserved it for judgment. But, without reopening the matter, the subsequent officer Sri D. Chakrapani passed impugned order in proceedings No.CCRA1/16798/2002 dated 03.02.2004. The petitioners questioned the said order on the ground that Sri D. Chakrapani has not heard the matter but the previous officer Sri Veerabhadraiah alone has heard the matter and reserved it for judgment and therefore, it cannot be said that the said Chakrapani has passed the impugned order after hearing the arguments advanced by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that without determining the market value by referring the matter under Section 47- A of the Act, proceedings under Section 41-A of the Act cannot be initiated unless any mistake has been committed by the Sub Registrar at the time of registration. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that as per the earlier order, the market value as reported by the Sub Registrar is Rs.300/- per square yard but in respect of that particular instrument, the market value was fixed at the rate of Rs.200/- and therefore, the proceedings have been initiated under Section 41-A of the Act. In the instant case, no document has been referred under Section 47-A of the Act and therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that initiation of proceedings under Section 41-A of the Act does not arise. I am not inclined to express any opinion on these contentions. Admittedly, the authority that passed the impugned order has not heard the arguments of the petitioners but the previous officer Sri Veerabhadraiah alone has heard the arguments and reserved it for judgment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remit back the matter to the first respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.02.2004 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to re-hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders afresh uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. V. ESWARAIAH,J Dt. 03.02.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No. 1335 OF 2005 Dt. 03.02.2011