HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.1869 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 22.09.2004 issued by the 1st respondent-District Registrar, Nalgonda, intimating about initiation of prosecution against the petitioner and the executant Smt. Jakiya Bhanu for suppression of facts under Section 27, 64, 64-A of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 82 of the Registration Act. According to the petitioner, she purchased the lands to an extent of 5,400 sq. yards in Plot Nos.19, 20, 28, 29, 66 and 67 in Sy.No.544 situated within the Municipal limits of Miryalaguda, and got the sale deed registered on payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration charges. She has been in possession of the said property ever since its purchase. It is the case of the petitioner that the Sub-Registrar, after enquiring into the matter and inspecting the subject plots, registered the sale deed submitted by her as per the market value existed at that time. While so, the 1st respondent issued the impugned notice dated 22.09.2004, intimating the petitioner and the executant about initiation of prosecution against them for the suppression of facts under Sections 27, 64, 64-A of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 82 of the Registration Act and also the deficit stamp duty as Rs.6,21,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that she has not suppressed any fact or undervalued the property purchased by her and that she gave description of the plots correctly. Her grievance is that prior to issuance of the impugned notice dated 22.09.2004, neither any notice demanding her to pay the deficit stamp duty was given nor enquiry as to determination of the market value of the property mentioned in the subject sale deed under Section 47- A of the Stamp Act was conducted. Therefore, the question of undervaluation of the property and initiation of prosecution for non- payment of deficit stamp duty does not arise. Hence, this writ petition. In the counter filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner, while presenting the document, has not given true set of facts with regard to the description and location of the property covered under the sale deed. It is also stated that on receiving necessary information from the residents of the Municipal Limits, the plots were inspected on 22.12.2003 and, having found that the petitioner and her vendor have not given the true set of facts in the document, issued the impugned notice dated 22.09.2004, intimating the intention of the 1st respondent to initiate prosecution. It is further stated that questions as to whether there was suppression of facts resulting loss of revenue to the department and also the deficit stamp duty are the questions to be decided in the enquiry to be initiated by the respondent under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent. A perusal of the impugned notice discloses the intention of the respondent to initiate prosecution against the petitioner and the executant of the subject document for the suppression of facts under Sections 27, 64, 64-A of the Indian Stamp Act and 82 of the Registration Act. But, it is the stand of the respondent in the counter affidavit filed by him that the questions as to suppression of facts resulting loss of revenue to the department and also the payment of deficit stamp duty are to be decided in the enquiry to be initiated by the respondents under the relevant provisions of law. This itself shows that without conducting enquiry as to the suppression of the facts and the determination of the deficit stamp duty payable by the petitioner, the impugned notice has been issued. Unless and until the respondent conducts enquiry and finds that the petitioner has suppressed the facts in the document and paid the deficit stamp duty and penalty, the respondent ought not to have come to the conclusion of initiating prosecution against the petitioner, as indicated in the impugned notice. The fact that no enquiry was conducted by the respondent before issuing the impugned notice is admitted by the respondent. In these circumstances, the impugned notice cannot be sustained and is therefore liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 22.09.2004 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ C.V.RAMULU,J 20.01.2011 v v/ksp