IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3543 of 2010 Between: The State of A.P., rep., by District Collector, Srikakulam & anothers. ..... Petitioners AND Voonna Vijaya Laxmi .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: GP for Arbitration Counsel for the respondent: Sri P. Krishna Prakash The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3543 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 23.12.2008 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.16 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The issue relating to proper valuation of the land sought to be sold by the respondent under a document presented before petitioner No.3 was referred to petitioner No.2 under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, “the Act”) by the former. Consequently, petitioner No.2 determined the value of the land at Rs.3,715/- per square yard. Feeling aggrieved by the said determination, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.16 of 2007 in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam (for short, “the civil Court”). The civil Court, by its order dated 23.12.2008, reduced the value of the property from Rs.3,715/- to Rs.2,500/- per square yard. It is this order, which is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition. At the hearing, Sri Ramchandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration, submitted that the civil Court failed to apply proper parameters in reducing the value of the property. Sri P. Krishna Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed this contention. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioner No.2 in his order has taken note of document Nos.1964/2005 and 1788/2005 pertaining to properties bearing door Nos.11-9-7 and 11-9-4 of town hall road. Under these documents, the properties were registered at Rs.1,700/- per square yard in the year 2005. As the document in question relates to the year 2007, petitioner No.2 has fixed the value at Rs.3,715/- per square yard. The civil Court, while finding that the property is situated near to the town hall road, however, reduced the value to Rs.2,500/- per square yard. In my opinion, petitioner No.2 has not given any reasons for increasing the value from Rs.1,700/- to Rs.3,715/-, which works out to nearly 120%. Petitioner No.2 has failed to consider the pattern of escalation with reference to the registered documents and has unilaterally assumed, without any basis whatsoever, that within two years’ time, the value of the property in the area would have increased by nearly 120%. Though the civil Court also has not applied any particular yardstick, determination of the value by it appears to be realistic, as the escalation of the property adopted by it works out to about 60%. In the absence of any scientific approach adopted by petitioner No.2 and the civil Court, I am of the opinion that the approach of the civil Court is more realistic and deserves to be preferred to that of petitioner No.2. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the civil Court and the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, CRPMP No.4738 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.12.2010 ES