IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17679 of 2001 Between: Smt. Shyamala Rambhotla, W/o. Sri. R.L.N.Murthy, Rep. by her GPA holder Dr. M. Ramakrishna Rao, S/o. M. Venkatappaiah, aged about 75 years, Occ: Retired Scientist, R/o. Plot No.30, Road No.5, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Collector, Flying Squad Zone VI, Registration and Stamps Department, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to declare the notices dated 28-07-2001 and 10-08-2001 issued by the 2nd respondent herein as contrary to the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1889 and the AP Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of Instructions) Rules, 1975 and by issuing appropriate Writ of Mandamus and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 17679 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is premature as it is directed against the notice issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 41-A of the Stamp Act. First Notice is dated 28-7-2001, to which the petitioner has replied on 4-8-2001 and the second notice is dated 10-8-2001. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that the petitioner obtained the property in question under registered sale deed bearing document No. 338/2001, dated 5-1-2001. The petitioner asserts that he has paid Stamp Duty @ Rs. 3,500/- per square yards in accordance with the Basic Value Register. The notice referred to above was issued that the 2nd respondent, basing upon the inspection by the Flying Squad, wherein it is alleged that serious under valuation was noticed. Notices were therefore issued to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the deficit Stamp Duty. The petitioner approached this Court by the present writ petition. By order dated 24-8-2001, while admitting the writ petition the impugned notices were suspended as prayed for. The said order remains in force as of now. I have heard Sri M. Srinivas learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under valuation matter relates to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the impugned notices do not confirm to the said provisions. It is also alleged that 2nd respondent has no power or authority as he is not Collector under the Stamp Act. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit asserting that the powers of the Collector under the Stamp Act have been delegated on the 2nd respondent, and as such, the 2nd respondent is empowered, as a Registrar, to issue the notices in question. It is also alleged that the valuation of the land as shown in the registered document is not in conformity with the prevailing market value, as such, it is provisionally concluded that the document is under valued. It is further alleged that the structure on the property has also not been properly assessed. Accordingly, the revised valuation shows that the petitioner is liable to pay a deficit stamp duty as well as penalty and that the petitioner is liable for prosecution under Section 64 of the Stamp Act. I have considered the submissions aforesaid. To my mind the contention with respect to Section 47-A is completely misconceived as the said provision applies before the document is registered and released and the objections that would be raised under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, would be at the time of the registration. As document, in the present case, is admittedly, registered and released to the petitioner and only subsequently, when the Flying Squad inspected the Sub-Registrar’s office, aforesaid deficiency was noticed. In fact, though the counter affidavit does not specifically trace the power to the statutory provisions, it is evident that the said power is referable to Section 41-A of the Act. The rules relating to under valuation framed under the Act are therefore, supplemental to the said principal power under Section 41-A of Indian Stamp Act. Secondly, in view of the delegation of the powers of the 2nd respondent the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not sustainable. However, the fact remains, that the Registrar, at the time of registration of the document in question while registering the same by taking into consideration the values of the properties as mentioned in the Basic Value Register has allegedly collected requisite stamp duty and now it cannot be said that document is deliberately under valued. As alleged further the power of the 2nd respondent to call upon the executant or beneficiary of a document to pay the deficit stamp duty is subject to fulfillment of the ingredients under Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act. However, in the present case both the notices referred to above are mere notices and not a final order under the Act. The first notice merely informs the petitioner and calls upon him to put forth his objection with regard to deficiencies in the valuation and stamp duty as alleged. The petitioner gave a reply dated 4-8-2001 under registered post acknowledgement due and the copy of the acknowledgement is placed before the Court. The 2nd notice merely calls upon the petitioner that he is given another chance to have the offence compounded by paying the compounding Court fee, if he so chooses. The choice with respect to having the offence compounded is therefore, entirely for the petitioner. In either case, the impugned proceedings cannot be said to be final order under Section 41-A of the Act. In fact, the petitioner has already given a reply dated 4-8-2001 challenging the first notice itself. The proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 19-8-2001 does not refer to the said reply. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. 1. The respondent No.2 shall consider the reply issued by the petitioner dated 4-8-2001 and pass appropriate final orders with regard to the impugned notice. 2. If the petitioner so desires, he shall be at liberty to file an additional reply if any, within a period of two weeks from today. 3. The 2nd respondent shall consider their reply or replies, if any, in accordance with law and pass final order under Section 41-A of the Act. 4. The interim suspension granted by this Court shall continue to operate till final order is passed by the 2nd respondent. If the petitioner so chooses, it is open for the petitioner to exercise his choice of having the alleged offence compounded, as offered in the impugned notices. ____________________________ Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkur 16th December, 2008 KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 17679 OF 2001 16th December, 2008.