THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.602 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner presented a sale deed, dated 17.08.2005, before the second respondent, for registration, in respect of the land in survey No.136, Anantharam Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District, admeasuring Acs.4.35 guntas. The second respondent did not agree with the evaluation of the property, and thereby, the stamp duty and registration charges, to be paid thereon. He addressed a letter, dated 19.08.2005, to the District Registrar, the first respondent, for necessary instructions. The first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 18.10.2005, as regards the evaluation. The petitioner, in turn, filed a representation on 24.10.2005. Through his order, dated 31.11.2007, the first respondent took the view that the petitioner has to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,96,440/- and registration fee of Rs.16,480/- (total Rs.3,12,920/-). The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. It is stated that in respect of the land in that very survey number, the respondents have registered the documents by assessing the value on acreage basis, whereas in the instant case, the value was fixed on yard basis. The petitioner referred to certain documents, in relation to the same survey number. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit. He denied the allegations made by the petitioner. The counter-affidavit is silent as to any documents that are registered in respect of the land in survey No.136. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner assessed the value of the property in survey No.136, on acreage basis i.e. Rs.50,000/- per acre. The second respondent was not satisfied with it and referred the matter under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, to the first respondent. In the impugned order, the first respondent observed that the second respondent recommended that the value be fixed at Rs.150/- per square yard. It was also mentioned that the petitioner did not place any material to the contrary and accordingly, directed payment of stamp duty. Firstly, the impugned order is bereft of any reasons, and the only basis for fixing of the value on yard basis was that the petitioner did not place any material to the contrary. It was for the respondents to refer to any transactions, on yard basis, in that survey number, or in the vicinity. The whole approach of the first respondent is untenable and contrary to law. An interesting feature of the matter is that subsequent to the presentation of the documents by the petitioner, sale deeds in respect of land in survey No.136 itself, were presented before the second respondent for registration. They were assigned P numbers of the year 2006 and the second respondent referred the matter under Section 47-A of the Act to the first respondent on 31.03.2006. Though the reference in relation to the document presented by the petitioner was earlier in point of time, the then District Registrar, took up the matter relating to the sale deeds of the year 2006 in relation to the same survey number. After undertaking elaborate discussion, he took the view that the value of the land on acreage basis i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- per acre, is proper. When it came to the question of the document presented by the petitioner, a totally different approach was adopted, may be, by a different incumbent. The petitioner was meted out discriminatory approach. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Strictly speaking, the matter must go back to the first respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. Since an order has already been passed by him, determining the value of the land in survey No.136 of the same village at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre, on 16.06.2007, the same shall apply to the present document also. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, setting aside the impugned order, but directing that the petitioner shall pay the stamp duty and registration charges, on the basis, that the value of the property is Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J. Dated:27.02.2009 GJ