IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23657 of 2008 Between: M/s. Mahaveer Steel Rolling Mills MCH NO. 1-9-8, IDA Azamabad, Azamabad Industrial Area, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Partner Sri Ra Niranjan Agarwal S/o. Mohanlal, aged 39 yrs ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by Inspector General of Stamps & Registration M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 2 The District Registrar of Assurances Hyderabad District, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 3 Sub Registrar of Assurances, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. 4 The Bank of India, Kachiguda Branch, Kachiguda, Hyderabad Repa. by its Chief Manager .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the Notice No. 419/2008 dt. 15-10- 2008 directing the petitioner to pay Rs./ 9,58,710/- towards deficit Stamp Duty and Registration charges on the Memorandum of Deposit of Tile Deed dt. 29-11-2007 (Pending Registration No. 112/2008) as arbitrary illegal, capricious and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as amended by A.P. Act 19 of 2005) and consequently direct the respondent No.2 & 3 to Register the Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dt. 29-11-2007 (pending Registration NO. 112/2008) by collecting the stamp duty as per the provisions of Article 7 of Schedule 1 A of Indian Stamp Act as amended by A.P. Stamp Act 19 of 2005 and Registration fee as per G.O.Ms.No. 2045 Revenue (Registration) Department dt. 28-11-2005 and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.V.DYUMANI Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.23657 of 2008 ORDER: M/s. Mahalakshmi Profile Private Limited obtained loan of Rs.19,19,24,000/- from the Kachiguda Branch of Bank of India, the 4th respondent herein. An item of property owned by the petitioner herein was offered as security and mortgage was created by depositing title deeds. A document in this regard was presented for registration before the 3rd respondent. Stamp duty of Rs.50,010/- and registration charges of Rs.1000/- were paid. After consulting the District Registrar-2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 15-10-2008 pointing out that the petitioner is liable to pay the deficit registration fee of Rs.9,58,620/- and stamp duty of Rs.90/-. The petitioner challenges the said notice in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2045, dated 28-11-2005 in exercise of powers under Section 78 of the Registration Act (for brevity ‘the Act’) causing amendment to the Table of Fees and according to it, the registration fee payable for a memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds is 0.1% of loan amount subject to maximum of Rs.1000/-. She contends that there is no basis for the demand of the amount at 0.5% of the loan amount without honouring the maximum stipulated amount. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the petitioner has to avail alternative remedies, if he is aggrieved by the notice. There is no dispute as to the quantum of stamp duty on the document. The petitioner paid the prescribed stamp duty of Rs.50,010/-. He does not object to payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.90/-. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1000/- towards registration charges. The 3rd respondent, however, is of the view that a sum of Rs.9,59,620/- is payable being 0.5% of the loan amount. G.O.Ms.No.2045, dated 28-11-2005, issued by the Government in exercise of the power under Section 78 of the Act, stipulates 0.1% of loan amount subject to maximum of Rs.1000/- as fee, on “Memorandum relating to Deposit of Title Deeds under Article 7 of the Schedule 1-A to the Stamp Act, 1899”. It is not in dispute that the document presented by the petitioner is the one, of deposit of title deeds, so much so, the stamp duty was collected, on that basis. The 3rd respondent is not justified in ignoring the maximum amount stipulated in the G.O. and requiring the petitioner to pay the amount at 0.5% of the loan amount. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. It is directed that the registration fee of Rs.1,000/- paid by the petitioner shall be treated as adequate, and necessary steps shall be taken accordingly. No costs. ___________________ 27th April 2009 KVR