THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.9869 of 2010 DATED: 28.04.2010 Between: Chilaka Lakshmi Devi .. Petitioner And The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that she filed suit in O.S.No.148 of 2007 before the II Additional District Judge’s Court, Guntur, for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.06.1998. On the ground that the said document is not sufficiently stamped, the trial Court has sent the said agreement of sale to the 2nd respondent- District Registrar, Stamps & Registration, Guntur, for impounding the same and collecting the deficit stamp duty. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 04.03.2010, requesting him to impose a nominal penalty. After considering the said representation of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 08.03.2010, requiring the petitioner to remit the deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,00,400/- and three times penalty of Rs.6,01,200/-, totalling to Rs.8,01,600/-, under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent- Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, on 07.04.2010. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said appeal is still pending and since no orders are passed therein, the suit filed by her is likely to be dismissed by the trial Court and, therefore, she submitted a representation to the 1st respondent on 13.04.2010, requesting him to pass final orders in the appeal preferred by her, but the same is not yet acted upon. Hence, she seeks appropriate directions for disposal of her appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the urgency expressed by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, against the orders dated 08.03.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 28th April, 2010 IBL