THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 1557 of 2007 Date of order: 10.12.2010 Between: District Registrar and Collector, Ongole and another …Petitioners and Gummadi Padma Sri ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 1557 of 2007 ORDER: District Registrar and Sub-Registrar, Ongole have questioned the order of appellate authority under the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), which has allowed the respondent’s appeal relating to adjudication of the market value under Section 47-A of the Act. The respondent herein purchased Ac.1.50 cents in S.Nos. 606/1 to 4, 607/1, 607/2, 608/5 and 608/7 of Epurupalem village, Vodarevu Panchayat, Prakasam district under a registered sale deed dated 19.3.2004 at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. The respondent herein paid the stamp duty and presented the said sale deed for registration, but the Sub-Registrar referred the sale deed under Section 47-A of the Act to the District Registrar and Collector who determined the market value at Rs.10,89,000/- as against Rs.75,000/- appearing in the sale deed. The respondent herein questioned the said order before the lower appellate authority under the Act. It appears that an advocate-commissioner was appointed pending the appeal who had given his report with regard to the location of the land in question and thereafter the lower appellate authority has found that the land in question is an agricultural land and the findings of the District Registrar and Collector treating the said land as having potential for house sites are not based on any material and consequently the revision of the market value was not approved and the petitioners herein were directed to register the pending document. Aggrieved thereby this revision petition is preferred Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration submits that the land is abutting the bypass road and all the adjacent lands are used as house sites and therefore the assessment of the market value as determined by the District Registrar and Collector is justified. Learned counsel for respondent, on the contrary, relies upon a decision of this Court reported in Maddula Nagasiromani, Maddula Ramakrishna Rao Vs. Subordindate Judge, Kovvur [1] and particularly para-7 thereof to contend that the potentiality of the land under the transaction of sale is not a relevant circumstance. The facts of the present case and the findings of the appellate authority itself show that on the date of inspection by the Advocate-Commissioner also the land was found to be cultivated with groundnut crop and the groundnut crop was found standing on the land and the sale deed also recites that what was sold is an agricultural land. It was also noticed by the lower appellate authority that the land is not located on the bypass road as wrongly assumed by the District Registrar and Collector, but, in fact, is away from the bypass road and as such basing on the distance of the land from the bypass road having been found substantially by the Advocate-Commissioner, the lower appellate authority has rightly concluded that the potentiality of the land for a possible use of house site is not relevant criteria as the land continues to be agricultural land. I, therefore, do not find any error in appreciation by the lower appellate authority under the Act. The impugned order does not warrant any interference. The revision petition is dismissed, however, no order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 10.12.2010 KR [1] 1996 (1) ALT 335