HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.R.P.No.269 OF 2007 ORDER : The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in C.M.A.No.4 of 2003, dated 21.12.2004. Respondent herein presented a sale deed before the Sub- Registrar, Banaganapalli on 12.08.2002. The value of the property was shown at Rs.1,20,000/-. The Sub-Registrar considered that the value of the property was at Rs.300/- per square yard and determined the value at Rs.3,52,700/- in all, as the extent of the property was 95.08 square yards and the plinth area was 1223.25 square feet. The Sub- Registrar referred the dispute to the District Registrar-cum-Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The learned District Registrar determined the value of the property at Rs.200/- per square yard and ultimately determined the value of the property at Rs.3,27,000/-. He directed the respondent to pay Rs.22,750/- towards deficit stamp duty and Rs.1,035/- towards additional registration fee and passed orders on 31.10.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred C.M.A.No.4 of 2003 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. As already pointed out, through the impugned orders, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, rejected the value as determined by the Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar and determined the value of the property at Rs.1,20,000/-, as mentioned in the sale deed. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred the present revision. The point for consideration is whether the order of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal is erroneous and whether the value as determined by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal cannot be accepted? The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the basic value register fixed the value of the property at Rs.300/- per square yard and that the learned Sub-Registrar followed the same in determining the value of the property. He also pointed out that the learned District Registrar-cum-Collector took into consideration the factor in favour of the respondent that the building is a dilapidated building and that depreciation needs to be assigned. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out that the District Registrar also took into consideration the factors for enhancement of the value, such as the fact that the property was situate in the middle of the town and that to strike a balance between the two situations, the District Registrar determined the value of the property at Rs.200/- per square yard and worked out the calculation and granted depreciation at 5% to the respondent. I am afraid that the basic value Register has no relevance in the present situation, particularly where the District Registrar himself has not taken the basic value register into consideration. If the District Registrar had determined the value of the property as mentioned in the basic value register at Rs.300/- per square yard, his claim could have been considered on merits. The District Registrar, however, himself considered that the value as shown in the basic value register did not show the real value of the property. Therefore, the value of the property is liable to be determined by other means. Admittedly, there are no sale deeds within reasonable time in the same locality. However, the Panchayat Secretary, Banaganapalle issued a certificate on 21.04.2003 valuing the property at Rs.1,25,000/- . The learned District Registrar determined to the value of the property at Rs.1,30,500/- according to the letter of the Panchayat Secretary, Banaganapalle on 02.09.2002. The value of the property from 02.09.2002 has deteriorated by 21.04.2003. The learned Government Pleader contended that the values of immovable properties increase, but do not decrease. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the property is a dilapidated building, that it has no site value for increase of the value of the property and that the two certificates issued by the same Panchayat Secretary, Banaganapalli, show that the value of the property was not much and has not changed much. Apart from the two valuations determined by the Panchayat secretary, Banaganapalle, no other material is available to determine the value of the property. In such a back ground, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal was perfectly justified in accepting the value, as mentioned by the vendee at Rs.1,20,000/-. I make it clear that the value as determined by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal was in view of the fact that there is no other material to determine the value of the property. Consequently, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal accepting the value as determined by the respondent vendee, is perfectly justified. I see no error in the judgment of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. This revision, therefore, is not maintainable. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 7th December 2010 PNV