THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1562 & 2975 of 2007 DATE: 30th June, 2011 C.R.P.Nos.1562 & 2975 of 2007 Between: The Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Kurnool and another … Petitioners / Respondents And The St. Joseph’s Educational Society, Kurnool … Respondent / Appellant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1562 & 2975 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Both the Civil Revision Petitions arose out of the common order dated 19.07.2006, allowing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 2 and 3 of 2004, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The said civil miscellaneous appeals arose out of a reference made by the Sub-Registrar under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, to the District Registrar, Kurnool. The respondents herein presented two different sale deeds for registrations of lands in Survey Nos. 10/1 and 10/2 to the extent of Ac.3.81 cents and Ac.3.00 cents respectively, relating to Roja Village of 44th ward of Kurnool municipality. Consideration mentioned in the document was shown as Rs.18,24,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- respectively. While the documents were registered but kept pending under Pending Documents Nos.245/KNL/92 and 246/KNL/92, and doubting the correctness of the market value as reflected in the said document, a reference was made to the Collector. Under orders of the Collector, the District Registrar conducted an enquiry and after inspection, determined the market value at Rs.130/- per square yard and demanded deficit stamp duty and registration fee. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred an appeal before Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. The said appeal was allowed on 30.12.1996 and the appellate Court order was questioned by the petitioners before this Court in CRP No.43 of 1999. The CRP was allowed by this Court and the matter was remitted back to the primary authority for fresh enquiry in accordance with law. Thereafter, the District Registrar gave notice to both the parties and passed fresh order dated 27.11.2003 after coming to the conclusion that the market value determined earlier at Rs.130/- per square yard is justified. Once again those orders were questioned by the respondents before the lower appellate Court in two separate Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.2 and 3 of 2004. The said CMAs having been allowed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, these two Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioner-State. Heard learned Government Pleader for the petitioners and Mr. MVS Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents in both the CRPs. After hearing both the counsel at length and after carefully analyzing the order of the lower appellate Court, I am of the view that the lower appellate Court has committed more than one error and it is apparent that the order of the lower appellate Court suffers not only from misreading of the order of this Court in CRP No.43 of 1999 but also from misreading of document marked as Ex.B2, apart from certain other errors pointed out by the learned Government Pleader. In view of the order proposed to be made, it is not necessary to deal into all the aspects on merits; and it would suffice if we notice the errors committed by the lower appellate Court. (i) While considering points 1 to 3, the lower appellate Court has stated as if this Court directed the Registrar to specifically follow Rule 4 or Rule 5, as is understood by the lower appellate Court. Such understanding is evident from paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the impugned order. Therefore, it is necessary to notice the following operative portion of the order in CRP No.43 of 1999 dated 17.04.2001. “Therefore it is a fit case where the matter has to go back to the primary authority. The Revision is accordingly allowed. The matter is remanded back to the District Registrar-primary authority, Kurnool for holding a fresh enquiry under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and determine the market value of the property involved in the document after giving opportunity to both sides.” It would be noticed that the direction of this Court while remitting the reference was to hold a fresh enquiry under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and determine the market value of the property. Undoubtedly the enquiry has to be in accordance with law which includes statutory rules also. However, it is one thing to say that the said direction is not followed by the registering authority and another thing to say that this Court directed specifically to follow Rule 4 or Rule 5 as is understood by the lower appellate Court. Even otherwise, not giving notice to vendors of both the documents is put against the petitioners. In my view, when a document is presented for registration and the vendor/executant admits receipt of consideration and accepts registration of the document, no further purpose remains to be served by giving notice to vendor in an enquiry under Section 47-A. Thus, in any case, not giving notice to the vendor, even if it is an irregularity, would not invalidate the order. The lower appellate Court has clearly missed to appreciate this aspect. (ii) Secondly, Ex.B2-Document is a transaction almost contemporaneous with the document in question; and the order of Registrar shows that the said document was with respect to 133 square yards which works out to Rs.405/- per square yard. However, in para 17, the lower appellate Court considers the said document as for 405 square yards at the rate of Rs.133/- per square yard. Apparently, the lower appellate Court has mixed up square yards and rates and has misconstrued the said document. Since these factual questions are required to be adjudicated by the lower appellate Court as final Court of fact, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the CMA Nos. 2 and 3 of 2004 deserve to be remitted back to the lower appellate Court for fresh consideration. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside. The CMA Nos. 2 and 3 of 2004 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool shall be heard and redetermined afresh and disposed of in accordance with law, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All contentions of either of the sides are kept open and they are free to urge the same before the lower appellate Court. Both the CRPs are accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 30th June, 2011 KSM