IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5852 of 2007 Between: The Sub Registrar, Choutuppal village & Mandal … Petitioner And: Gundeboina Ramesh … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5852 of 2007 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment 10.08.2007 in CMA No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, wherein, the said appeal filed by the respondent herein, was allowed and the order of the District Registrar, Nalgonda (Collector) dated 28.03.2005 in Proceedings No.CC/P 13/47- A/2004 was set aside. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner- State and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein purchased property of 36 guntas in Sy.Nos.60, 102, 103 and 104 of Lakkaram village for Rs.90,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and accordingly paid stamp duty and registration fee while presenting the document for registration. The Sub Registrar made reference to the District Registrar for determination of the market value of the property under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (short ‘the Act’). The District Registrar issued show cause notice to the respondent, who submitted a representation on 01.07.2004. In the report submitted by the Sub Registrar, after field inspection, it was stated that the land in Sy.No.60 was converted into house sites and is no longer useful for cultivation and there is no water facility to cultivate the land. It was also noted that the lands in Sy.Nos.102, 103 and 104 were partially converted into house sites. The land is stated to be about 2 KM from main village Choutuppal and one KM away from the main road. The District Registrar, going by the report submitted by the Sub Registrar, fixed the market value of the land at Rs.5,42,000/- per acre and directed the Sub Registrar, Choutuppal to collect the difference in the stamp duty of Rs.43,780/- and registration fee of Rs.1,990/-, totaling Rs.45,770/- Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred appeal CMA No.5 of 2007 before the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir. By impugned judgment dated 10.08.2007, the learned Senior Civil Judge, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Registrar and directed the Sub Registrar, Choutuppal to register the document without collecting any deficit stamp duty and registration charges. 4. The main contention of the respondent herein before the appellate Court was that the District Registrar has not followed the procedure prescribed under the rules and simply went by the report furnished by the Sub Registrar and the said contention was accepted by the lower appellate Court. 5. The Sub Registrar made reference to the District Registrar under section 47-A of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A states that where the registering officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, or that the value arrived at by him as per the guidelines prepared or caused to be prepared by the Government from time to time has not been adopted by the parties, he may keep pending such instrument and refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon. Sub-Section (2) mandates that on receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of making their representation and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property . Sub- section (6) states that for the purposes of this Act, market value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Collector or the appellate authority, as the case may be, such property would have fetched or would fetch, if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument. 6. The provisions of Section 47-A, therefore contemplate issuance of a show cause notice and giving an opportunity of making a report after conducting enquiry in the manner prescribed by the Collector on receipt of reference from the Sub Registrar. Rule 4 of the A.P. Stamp (Prevention of under Valuation of instruments) Rules 1975 (for short ‘the Rules’) which were issued in exercise of the powers conferred under section 47-A and 75 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, laid down the procedure to be followed on receipt of reference under sub-section (1) of section 47-A. Rule 4 states that on receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, accompanied by a statement in Form I from a registering officer, the Collector shall issue a notice in Form No.II to the persons by whom and in whose favour the instrument has been executed. Sub-rule (2) enables the Collector, if he thinks fit, to record a statement from the person to whom a notice under sub-rule (1) has been issued. Sub-rule (3) contemplates that the Collector may call for any information or record a statement from any public office and examine and record statements from the members of the public etc. and inspect the property after due notice to the parties concerned. Sub-rule (4) states that after considering the representations, and after examining the records and evidence, before him, the Collector shall pass an order in writing determining the market value of the property and the duty payable. Rule 5 of the Rules laid down the principles for the determination of the market value and states that as far as possible, the Collector shall have regard to the aspects mentioned therein while determining the market value. Sub rule (a) of Rule 5 enlists the factors to be taken into consideration while determining the market value in the case of lands and sub rule (b) is in respect of the house sites. Rule 4 states that the Collector after considering the representations received in writing and those alleged at the time of hearing and after consideration of all the relevant factors and evidence pass an order determining the market value of the property and duty payable. The District Registrar is therefore obligated statutorily to follow the procedure prescribed and taking into consideration the various factors enumerated in the rules while determining the market value and the duty payable thereon. 7. In the impugned order dated 28.03.2005 of the District Registrar, it is stated that the notice in Form No.I was issued to the parties to show cause as to why difference in stamp duty should not be collected from them. Form No.I is prescribed for submission of report by the Sub Registrar to the District Registrar, along with reference under Section 47-A and the Collector is required to issue notice in Form No.II under sub-rule (b) of Rule 4 of the Rules. The impugned order of the District Registrar does not show that any such notice in Form No.II was issued to the respondent. However, as seen from the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, the verification of the records reveals that the District Registrar issued notice in Form No.II to the parties calling for the objections. But there was no acknowledgement about the service of any such notice. The impugned order of the District Registrar does not disclose that any statement of the persons to whom notice was issued has been recorded. The said order does not also reveal as to the nature of the enquiry conducted by the District Registrar. Rule 4 specifically contemplates an enquiry by the District Registrar and Collector, which includes inspection of the property by him after due notice to the parties. The order of the District Registrar shows that the Sub Registrar, Choutuppal, conducted field inspection and submitted enquiry report, wherein, it was stated that the land in Sy.No.60 was converted into house sites and the lands in Sy.Nos.102, 103 and 104 were partially converted in to house sites. The alleged field inspection and the enquiry referred to in the impugned order of the District Registrar were made by the Sub Registrar, but not by the District Registrar and Collector as contemplated in Rule 4. 8. There is nothing to show that the District Registrar made any local inspection of the land and conducted independent enquiry on his own and took the various factors enumerated in Rule 5 before determining the market value of the land and assessing the duty payable thereon. There is absolutely no basis for arriving at market value of the land at Rs.5,42,000/- per acre as mentioned in the order of the District Registrar. The impugned order does not disclose that any effort was made to gather particulars as to the probable price the land would have fetched if sold in open market as on the date of the execution of the instrument as contemplated in sub-rule(6) of section 47-A. Even assuming that the land has potentiality as house sites in view of its proximity to the village and main road, it is not indicated in the order of the District Registrar as to how and on what basis, the market value is determined at Rs.5,42,000/- per acre. The impugned order of the District Registrar does not disclose that the relevant factors enumerated in Rule 5 for determining the market value have been taken into consideration at all and any particulars have been gathered for the purpose of making such determination, which are relevant to the factors mentioned in Rule 5. In the absence of any such effort on the part of the District Registrar and Collector to determine the market value in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 4 and on the strength of the relevant factors mentioned in Rule 5 and the District Registrar, having simply gone by the report submitted by the Sub Registrar, the impugned order passed by the District Registrar stands vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory requirements. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the District Registrar, which does not disclose any basis for arriving the market value at Rs.5,42,000/- per acre in an objective manner, is totally unsustainable. The impugned order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the District Registrar, does not, therefore call for any interference. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.04.2011 bss