IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12964 of 2004 Between: Challa Sambi Reddy & others … Petitioners AND The Collector and Assistant District Registrar, Nizamshahi Road … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A. Santhosh Kumar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12964 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 20.05.2003 of respondent No.1 and order dated 26.04.2004 passed in CMA.No.257 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Appellate Authority under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899). The property of the petitioners in question was registered by respondent No.2 vide document No.2238 of 1986 dated 13.08.1986. However, after registering the said document, respondent No.2 appeared to have made a reference to respondent No.1 purportedly under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, ‘the Act’). Respondent No.1 by his order dated 20.05.2003 ﬁxed the market value of the property in question at Rs.11,06,000/- and directed the petitioners to pay the deﬁcit stamp duty of Rs.25,275/- and other amounts, which together came to Rs.53,075/-. Questioning the said order, the petitioners ﬁled WP.No.12864 of 2003. In the said writ petition the petitioners raised the speciﬁc contention that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to refer the document under Section 47-A of the Act after its registration. The learned Judge, having considered the said provision, observed that the said provision makes it clear that the same applies only to the instruments, which are pending registration. However, relief was declined to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have an eﬃcacious alternative remedy of ﬁling an appeal. In view of the said order, the petitioners ﬁled an appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who, by order dated 26.04.2004, dismissed the said appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Section 47A(1), which is relevant for the present purpose, reads as under: “Where the registering oﬃcer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, partition, settlement, release, agreement relating to construction, development or sale of any immovable property or power of attorney given for sale, development or immovable property, has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been truly setforth in the instrument, or that the value arrived at by him as per the guidelines prepared or caused to be prepared by the Government from time to time has not been adopted by the parties, he may keep pending such instrument and refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon: Provided that no reference shall be made by the registering oﬃcer unless an amount equal to ﬁfty per cent of the deﬁcit duty arrived at by him is deposited by the party concerned.” From the above reproduced provision, it is clear that the power of the registering oﬃcer to refer any instrument to the Collector for determination of the proper market value can be exercised only at the time of registering the instrument and while keeping the same pending. Once the registration is done, he has no power to refer the document to the Collector. Indeed this was also the ﬁnding of this Court in the writ petition ﬁled by the petitioners earlier as noted above. Unfortunately, the appellate Court has not considered this aspect. As admittedly the instrument was registered before respondent No.2 referred the same to respondent No.1, the reference by him itself is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 1 are quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.16562 of 2004 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.08.2008 ES