IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 975 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: 1 State of A.P. Rep. by District Collector, Srikakulam 2 District Registrar of Assurances Hospital Road, Srikakulam ..... PETITIONER(S) AND NAdimpalli Tirupati Raju S/o. NArayanaraju Bonthalakoduru village Etcherla Mandal Srikakulam District .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR ARBITRATION Counsel for the Respondent : MR.A.RAMA RAO FOR RVAK-1 The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.975 OF 2009 ORDER: This Revision is preferred against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in C.M.A.No.24 of 2007 dated 3.11.2008 which in turn is an order in appeal from the order passed by the District Registrar of Assurances, Srikakulam dated 29.9.2007. In the Proceedings dated 29.9.2007, the District Registrar cum District Collector, Srikakulam takes note of the report of the Sub Registrar, Ponduru to the effect that the value of the property, as per the market value guidelines for survey No.254/1 & 254/3, of an extent of Ac.0.60 cents, was Rs.2,03,500/- @ Rs.70/- per sq. yard. The District Registrar holds that on this value an amount of Rs.22,385/- was payable towards stamp duty and Rs.1,020/- towards Registration fees and, as the parties had engrossed stamp duty of Rs.3,300/- on the document with a registration fee of Rs.150/-, the deficit stamp duty and Reservation fees to be paid came to Rs.19,955/-. In his spot inspection report, the Sub Registrar, Ponduru, states that the property was spot inspected by him, that he found that the property was agricultural land covered by S.No.254/1 of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents and S.No.254/3 of an extent of Ac.0.10 cents i.e., a total of Ac.0.60 cents in Dharmavaram village, that presently there were casuarinas plants on the land and that, after making local enquiries, he was of the view that the land value was Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. The District Registrar cum District Collector, however, fixed the value of the property mentioned in the document, at Rs.3,38,800/- per acre. Reasons, for fixing the value of the property at Rs.3,38,800/-, are not discernable from the order of the District Registrar cum District Collector, Srikakulam. The District Registrar merely states that she had arrived at such a value after considering all the facts and circumstances and findings at the time of spot inspection and as per the data available in the office record. The order makes no reference to any particular document, other than the value determined as per market value guidelines at Rs.2,03,500/- per acre and the value of the property as assessed by the Sub Registrar, Ponduru at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. Except stating that she relied on the data available in the office records, the order of the District Registrar does not disclose what the data was nor does it indicate the basis for determining the value of the property at Rs.3,38,800/-. The order of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam suffers from similar infirmities. The learned Judge takes note of the report of the Sub Registrar, Pondur assessing the value at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. He, however, omits to refer to the market value guidelines whereunder the value was assessed at Rs.2,03,500/-. The Learned Judge determines the value of the property at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre on the ground that he feels it appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Having relied on the report of theSub Registrar, Ponduru, wherein the value of the property was shown as Rs.1,25,000/- per acre, the learned Judge, does not even fix the market value as such but fixes the value of the property at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. The order, under revision, is evidently passed without taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case. While the learned counsel for the respondent would request this Court to fix the market value, I consider it wholly inappropriate to do so as it is not the function of this Court, in revision proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to determine the market value of the land. The order in C.M.A. No.24 of 2007 dated 3.11.2008 is set aside. C.M.A No.24 of 2007 is restored to the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam who shall, after hearing both parties, determine the market value of the land in question on the material evidence available on record, and, thereafter, pass orders in accordance with law. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANTAHAN,J Date:07.08.2009. Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN ORDER: in CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.975 OF 2009 Date:07.08.2009. Gk.