IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5341 of 2008 Between: Nunna Raghavulu S/o. Krishnayya R/o. G. Mamidada, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector-cum-The Authority under Stamps and Registration Act, East Godavari District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue writ, order or diection, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned order in Ref.F.63/2005 issued by the 2nd respondent dated 12.01.2005 is illegal, contrary and violative of the principle of the Indian Stamp Act and set asdie teh same consequently directing the respondents to consider the cash a fresh further issuing the notice to the petitioner and pass any other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5341 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner assails the proceedings/order in Ref.F.63/2005 dated 12.01.2005 of the second respondent whereby and whereunder purporting to exercise power under Article 47-A(C)(ii) of Schedule IA read with Section 40(1)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, second respondent impounded agreement of sale entered into by the petitioner, and levied stamp duty of Rs.8,850/- and five times penalty in a sum of Rs.42,250/-. The said proceedings is assailed mainly on the ground that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to impound the document chargeable with stamp duty. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in G.Ramesh v Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda District[1]. Notification issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide proceedings No.S1/19311/07, dated 27.02.2008, has also been placed before this Court in support of the contention. In G.Ramesh (supra) this Court laid down as under. …There is also no such notification issued by the Government delegating their powers under Section 2(9) of the Stamp Act to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority or any notification issued by the latter under Section 76-A of the Stamp Act in exercise of such delegated powers. Indeed, it is clearly admitted that so far Government or Chief Controlling Revenue authority have not issued any notification authorizing the Revenue Divisional Officer to exercise powers exercisable by the District Collector under Sections 33, 38 and 40 of the Stamp Act. Therefore, any enquiry contemplated or being conducted by the respondent is without jurisdiction. The notification issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Government of Andhra Pradesh, reads as under. No S1/19311/07 Dt.27.2.08 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (b) of Sub section 9 of the Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and in terms of para 6 of the G.O.Ms.No.587, Revenue (Registration-I) Dept., dt.17.07.1996. The controlling Revenue Authority and the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, hereby withdraw the powers of the Sub-Collectors (Head Asst. Collectors), Asst. Collectors and Dy.Collectors/R.D.Os incharge of divisions conferred under Section 40, 41 & 42 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Sd/- Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration & Stamps A.P., Hyderabad. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside as without jurisdiction. Second respondent is directed to place the file before the District Collector for necessary orders. As and when the same is placed before him, the District Collector may pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 23.12.2008 vs To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} [1] 2006 (6) ALT 476 = 2006 (6) ALD 136