HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3909 OF 2009 . DATED 22nd February, 2011 BETWEEN MadduriBhadra Reddy …Petitioner And The District Collector,Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3909 OF 2009. ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.2.33 gts situate in Sy.No. 106/A of Nyamatapur village of Talakondapally Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. It is stated that the petitioner entered into a registered document dated 23.06.2004 with his son-in-law subject to a condition that the sale consideration will be paid after the subject land is re-sold to third parties. However, due to the reasons best known them, the son-in- law re-conveyed the land to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cancelled the earlier sale deed dated 23.02.2004 by executing a cancellation deed and thereafter, he executed a registered gift deed in favour of his wife. It is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner re-paid the amount, which was paid at the time of execution of sale deed dated 23.06.2004, to his son-in-law and in the said transaction, evidencing the receipt of the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- on 5.11.2004 and also acknowledging the receipt of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on earlier occasion, his son-in-law executed an unstamped document dated 5.11.2004 in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the son-in-law of the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 30 of 2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, at Kalwakurthy, Mahaboobnagar District, against the petitioner, seeking cancellation of the sale deed and also the gift deed executed by the petitioner in favour of his wife. The petitioner relied on the unstamped document dated 5.11.2004 in the suit filed by him. As such, the petitioner placed the said unstamped document before the District Collector to impound the same under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act by imposing stamp duty and penalty. The District Collector, by an order dated 31.1.2009 levied stamp duty of Rs.16,800/- and ten times penalty of Rs.1,68,000/-, total to Rs.1,84,800/- on the document dated 5.11.2004 under Section 40(1)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the unregistered document dated 5.11.2004 is only a receipt executed by the son-in-law of the petitioner acknowledging the receipt of certain amounts on two occasions and that on such document, no new right is created or extinguished. It is further submitted that the respondent ought to have construed the document dated 5.11.2004 as a receipt or relinquishment deed and levied stamp duty. The respondent filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that a perusal of the document dated 5.11.2004 submitted by the petitioner reveals that one Sri Narasimha Reddy (son-in-law of the petitioner) had sold away the subject land to the petitioner and executed the sale deed on an ordinary paper. It is further stated that pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner for impounding the document in question, the same was processed under Section 40(1)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. A perusal of the document dated 5.11.2004, on which the petitioner placed defence qua the suit proceedings, reveals that the son-in-law of the petitioner purchased the subject land from his father-in-law (the petitioner) and due to financial problems, he (son-in-law) re-sold the subject land to the petitioner for the same price for which he purchased earlier and that he received the sale consideration amount of Rs.2,80,000/-, and, evidencing acknowledgment of the same, he entered the document dated 5.11.2004 in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the respondent rightly impounded the document treating it as a conveyance. The recitals in the documents clearly show the intention of the parties or the purpose for which and the circumstances under which the transactions came into existence and the document in question evidences transactions by way of disposal of the interest of the executant. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and gone through the case file, I do not see any reason to draw a different conclusion than what was arrived by the District Collector in the order impugned in the Writ Petition. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition, is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 22nd Feburary, 2011. Msnro