THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13111 of 2003 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati in Roc.No.E/1048/2002 dated 29.10.2002 purporting to be in exercise of power under Section 40 of Indian Stamp Act, thereby treating Agreement of Sale dated 27.7.1992 executed by one Lalitha Kumari W/o Subramanya in favour of petitioner as one falls under Explanation No.1 to Article 47 (A) Schedule-1A (A.P. State) of the Indian Stamp Act levying an amount of Rs.1,27,050/- as stamp duty and a penalty of Rs.3,81,150/- as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, she laid a suit for specific performance. During the course of trial, she relied upon an agreement of sale dated 27.7.1992 executed by one Lalitha Kumari in her favour. Since the said document was not properly stamped, she sought reference under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act to the Revenue Divisional Officer for impounding the document. The Revenue Divisional Officer, without any notice to the petitioner has impounded the document by levying a fee of Rs.1,27,050/- as stamp duty and further penalty of Rs.3,81,150/- under Explanation No.1 to Article 47(A) of Schedule-1A of Indian Stamp Act. The fact that no notice was issued is not in dispute. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that if the document is referred by the Court after deciding the market value for impounding, probably the Revenue Divisional Officer is right in fixing the stamp duty, but this is a case where the document was referred under Section 38(2) of Indian Stamp Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that once the document is referred under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, it is the bounden duty of the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue a notice as to why the document shall not be impounded and the penalty proposed should not be imposed. In this case, such a course was not adopted and it appears, the Revenue Divisional Officer hurriedly decided the matter. The method adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer is contrary to the principles of natural justice. In a case of this nature, where the document sought to be impounded and three times penalty is sought to be imposed, it is always desirable that the person who is liable to pay the stamp duty and penalty, must be put on notice and explanation should be called for from him before taking such a decision. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent and the first respondent shall consider and decide the matter afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner and on receiving objections, if any in this regard. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 29.7.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13111 of 2003 29.7.2009