THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 6776 OF 2003 Date of Judgment: 24.6.2011 Between: Kuldeep Kumar and others …Petitioners and The District Registrar, Collector, Ranga Reddy district ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 6776 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioners challenge the judgment of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district (Appellate Authority under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act), dated 25.2.2003. The petitioners presented a sale deed before the respondent-District Registrar for registration in their favour with respect to lands bearing S.Nos. 247/2, 247/3, 247/14, 18 and 19, 276/2 and 276/3, admeasuring Ac.7-09 guntas situated at Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajgiri. The petitioners claimed that the sale deed was presented in pursuance of the decree in O.S.No. 209 of 1985, dated 10.10.1985 and the stamp duty on the document presented, was based upon the value of the property as shown in the said suit and the decree. The said document was kept pending as pending document No. 1331 of 1997 and the District Registrar made a reference on 3.9.2011 under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act for determination of the stamp duty. Notice under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act was replied to by the petitioners, but ultimately under the proceedings dated 24.1.2001 the primary authority i.e., District Registrar held that the petitioner had undervalued the document presented and required the deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fee as well. Questioning the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the appellate authority i.e., Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district in CMA No. 5 of 2002 and the same was dismissed under the impugned judgment. Hence this revision. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appellate authority has totally misdirected itself in not following the requirement of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, and particularly sub-clause (6) thereof read with Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instrument) Rules, 1975. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the appellate authority has not independently considered the evidence on record and merely on the basis of the legal position that the value is to be determined on the basis of the date on which the sale deed was executed, decided the appeal. The claim of the petitioners is on the basis of the decree granted in their favour for specific performance and they claim that the nature of the property being such, the valuation, as sought to be put by the registration authority, is too excessive and is neither realistic nor in conformity with the values prevailing in that area. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the appellate authority has not applied its mind in terms of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act read with Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instrument) Rules, 1975 and after framing a point for consideration under the impugned order, the appellate authority has just quoted the ratio of the decision of this Court and dismissed the appeal without considering any evidence on record and also without discussing the reasoning and the order of the primary authority. It is to be kept in mind that a reference under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act is made only when the registration authority entertains a bona fide doubt that the consideration reflected in the document is not apparent consideration and is deliberately undervalued so as to defeat the interest of the revenue. The reference can only be made subject to satisfaction of the registering authority with respect to the above. The appellate authority is also required to look into these aspects, apart from the material based on which the primary authority has passed the order under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. None of these aspects are found from the judgment of the lower appellate authority. Hence I am constrained to set aside the said judgment and remit the appeal to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The lower appellate authority shall endeavour to decide the appeal afresh, uninfluenced by any observations made herein, expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 24.6.2011 KR