IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5460 OF 2003 Between: The Sub-Collector, Bodhan .....PETITIONER AND Baslingu ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5460 OF 2003 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 31.01.1995, in C.M.A.No.9 of 1992, on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Bodhan, whereunder and whereby, the order, dated 29.04.1992, in file bearing RC.No.I/3926/91, before the Sub-Collector, Bodhan, in directing the respondent herein to pay the difference of stamp duty of Rs.5,110/-, was set aside. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The short point that falls for consideration is, whether the date of agreement has to be taken into consideration or the date of presentation of the agreement before the Sub-Registrar has to be taken into consideration, for the purpose of determining the stamp duty. The Sub-Collector, Bodhan, vide order, dated 29.04.1992, in RC.No.I/3926/91, determined the stamp duty payable by taking note of the date of presentation of the document in Sub-Registrar’s Office duly overruling the contention of the respondent to determine stamp duty basing on the market value on the date of agreement of sale. That order was set aside vide the impugned order. The issue involved in the case has been squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Siddula Madhukar and another v. Govt. of A.P.[1], wherein it is held thus: “Only because in relation to such an agreement for sale a suit for specific performance of contract had to be filed and a decree was passed is no ground to hold that in such a case the duty payable would be calculated at the rate which was prevailing at the time of execution of the agreement for sale and not at the rate which was prevailing at the date of execution. The statue does not say so. In our considered opinion by reason of an interpretation thereof, no meaning can be attributed which is beyond the scope and purport of the statutory provisions.” So, in view of the above decision, it is clear that the relevant date for determining the stamp duty is, the date of presentation of the agreement of sale before the Sub-Registrar’s office and not the date of agreement of sale, on which the suit is filed and decreed. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 31.01.1995, in C.M.A.No.9 of 1992, on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Bodhan. It is needless to observe that the order, dated 29.04.1992, of Sub-Collector, Bodhan, is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 17, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5460 OF 2003 February 17, 2011 [1] 2001 (3) ALD 317 (DB)