IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 8788 of 2009 Between: Eradala Raghu Babu S/o.Late Janardhana Rao Agaraharam, Eluru, West godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Registrar of Assurances and Collector Machilipatnam, Krishna District 2 The Sub Registrar ,Kanukola , Krishna District 3 The Deputy Inspector General Registration and Stamps Vijayawada .....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 an appropriate writ more particularly in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of respondent No.1 and 2 in estimating the market value of agricultural land in Sy.No.182/3 an extent of ACres.3.28 Veeravalli village @ 192/- per square yard as to the date of the document valued Rs.33,91,000/- instead of Rs.97,000/- per acre as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violating of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to calculate the market value of the agricultural land in RS.No.182/3 admeasuring Ac.3.28 situated at Veeravalli village @ 97,000/- per acre by setting aside the impugned order No.G2/47-A/597/07 dated 7.2.2009 passed by the 1st respondent herein in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHINDAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No :8788 of 2009 ORDER: The writ petition is mis-conceived. It is directed against the order of the first respondent determining the deficit stamp duty liability payable by the petitioner at Rs. 2,51,070/- and the deficit registration fee payable at Rs.13,955/- in respect of land of an extent of Acs.3.28 cents in Survey No. 182/3 of Veeravalli Village, Krishna District. The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with Sri Venkateshwara Khandasari Sugars Limited, Veeravalli, a sick company, represented by its Managing Director, one Sambasiva Rao to purchase this land including a house therein, on a consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only). As the vendor failed to execute the registered sale deed, despite the petitioner’s readiness and willingness to perform his part of the reciprocal obligation under the agreement of sale, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance before the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The suit was decreed. He applied to the Court in E.P. for registration of the sale deed. At that point of time, the second respondent determined the market value of the property conveyed, requiring the registration, at Rs. 43,40,233/- and determined the stamp duty and other liabilities under the relevant statutes in respect of such market value determined and sent up reports to the first respondent. The first respondent, by the order dated 7.2.2009, (impugned), concurred with the second respondent and consequently determined the deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fee payable by the petitioner, as already adverted to. The petitioner is thus, before this Court contending that the order of the first respondent is arbitrary, without jurisdiction and without power. Nothing is pleaded by the petitioner or urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate before this Court that the first respondent lacks competence or otherwise the jurisdiction to determine the deficit stamp duty and registration fee payable by the presentor of an instrument for registration, in exercise of the power under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’). Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes the position that the first respondent is the authorized officer to determine the liability under Section 47-A of the Act. The vague assertion of lack of jurisdiction is, therefore, misconceived, and is accordingly rejected. Since the first respondent is seen to have the jurisdiction, as a necessary corollary, he also has the power to determine the liability in exercise of power under Section 47-A of the Act. It requires to be noticed that the petitioner has an effective, alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal provided to the District Court under Section 47-A(4)of the Act. As specified in Section 47-A(5), the appellate authority in respect of any order passed by the Collector under Sub-Section (2) or Sub-Section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act, is the Principal District Subordinate Judge, having jurisdiction over the area in which the property concerned is situated or if there is no such Subordinate Judge, the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner places for the consideration of this Court two judgments, both of learned single Judges of this Court. He relied on the decision of this Court In Maddula Nagasiromani v. The Subordinate Judge, Kovvur & Others ([1]), to contend that the impugned order is erroneous, as it has taken the potential value of the land also into consideration for the purpose of determining the market value and therefore, the stamp duty and registration fee is not payable, as determined. This Court is not inclined to go into this issue as the petitioner is relegated to pursue the appellate remedy under Section 47-A(4) of the Act. The petitioner could gainfully canvass this contention in the appellate forum. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on another decision of this Court in Amaraswamy Venkataswamy vs. Sub-Registrar, Registration & Stamps, Badvel & Others ([2]), wherein, this Court entertained a writ petition for declaration and disposed of the writ petition directed against an order of the registering authority determining the market value of the property under Section 47-A of the Act. The entirety of the judgment deals with the merits of the facts presented therein, namely, as to whether the instrument concerned had or had not truly set-forth the market value. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since this Court has adjudicated upon the correctness of the determination by the registering authorities in a writ petition, it should be considered as a principle established that a writ petition is not only maintainable, but the litigative strategy of choice for impeachment of a determination by the registering authorities under Section 47-A of the Act. Such contention is too broadly stated to commend acceptance by this Court. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in Amaraswamy Venkataswamy’s case (cited supra-2), discloses that the import of the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 47-A(4) of the Act, was not considered in the judgment. The said judgment, cannot therefore, be an authority for the proposition that notwithstanding the availability of an appellate forum, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be entertained to consider the validity of a revenue determination under Section 47-A of the Act. As the appellate remedy is provided to the judicial branch, whether as a Court or a persona designata, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate upon this grievance of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the state of admission with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 11th June, 2009 pnb [1] 1995(3) ALD 60 [2] 1998(3) An.W.R. 259