THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5252 OF 2008 DATED: 23-09-2010 Between 1.The State of A.P. rep. by Collector, Srikakulam and two others …Petitioners And B.Ayyappa Rao …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5252 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 30-06-2008, in CMA.No.13 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in setting aside the order, dated 31-07-2007 passed by the 2nd petitioner herein. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners herein vehemently contended that the property is located near Women’s College of Srikakulam and therefore, determination of correct market value has to be ascertained and necessary stamp duty and penalty has to be paid in accordance with the surrounding lands. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein contended that there is no documentary evidence to show that the land in question is used for commercial or residential purpose and the land in Sy.No.94/3 is cultivation field where paddy is being cultivated, that similarly abutting land in Sy.No.94/3 is agricultural land, that therefore, the appellate Court rightly held that the value of the property as furnished by the respondent herein is correct and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Primary authority has fixed the market value at Rs.1,650/- per sq. yard and estimated stamp duty and registration fee. There must be basis for estimation of the value of the land as per square yard. A finding has been recorded by the appellate Court that the land in Sy.No.94/3 as per the market value (agricultural land) particulars mentioned in form No. II is paddy cultivating land. The documents available with the Registering authority would clearly go to show that the land in Sy.No.94/3 is agricultural land and paddy is being cultivated. The value of the land has to be estimated basing on acre wise. That has not been done so. That is the reason why the appellate Court rightly set aside the order of the primary authority, dated 31-07-2007 and the said order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:23-09-2010 Hsd