IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5943 of 2002 Between: M.Swarnalatha, Rep. by her GPA holder Sri. Justice K.Jayachandra Reddy, Flat No. 14, Meghna Paradise, Ishak Colony, Secunderabad-15. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & others. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR REVENUE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5943 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to refund to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,37,295/- collected from her towards deﬁcit stamp duty, registration fee and transfer of property charges in respect of document No.331/99-MU.204430 dated 18-08-1999. Heard Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. The petitioner was allotted plot No.449-A, admeasuring 730 sq. yards, situated in Road No.20, Jubilee Hills by the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited (for short ‘the Society’) for a consideration of Rs.9,672.50 in lieu of plot No.38 and refunded the diﬀerential sum of Rs.5,328/- to the petitioner. On the insistence of the Society, the petitioner initiated steps for registration of the sale deed. When the petitioner deposited Rs.5,000/- in cash and another sum of Rs.5,000/- through cheque, the Society presented the document before respondent No.3 for registration. Respondent No.3 refused to receive the document for registration and insisted for payment of Rs.2,74,590/- in cash comprising Rs.1,62,520/- towards stamp duty, Rs.10,370/- towards registration fee and Rs.1,01,700/- towards transfer of property charges. This demand was made as per the basic value register which showed the market value of the plot as Rs.20,44,000/- at the rate of Rs.2,800/- per sq. yard. When the GPA of the petitioner disputed correctness of the valuation made by respondent No.3, the latter suggested to deposit atleast half of the above mentioned amount pending determination of the correct market value. It is averred in the aﬃdavit that as there was threat of initiation of action by the Society, the GPA deposited the sum of Rs.1,37,295/- in the oﬃce of respondent No.3. Thereupon, respondent No.3 received the sale deed but kept its registration pending while referring the same to respondent No.2 for determination of the market value of the property. In the aﬃdavit, the GPA averred that he received notice dated 07-10-1999 from respondent No.2 requiring him to submit his representation to show that the market value mentioned in the sale was truly and correctly setforth and, accordingly, he submitted his representation on 16-11-1999 and that so far, nothing was heard from respondent No.2. The petitioner claimed refund of the amount deposited on her behalf on the basis of the division bench judgment of this Court in Lakshmi Devi Vs. Government of A.P. (Revenue) Dept., & Others[1], wherein this Court has struck down Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by A.P. Act 8 of 1998, which requires a party to deposit 50% of the disputed stamp duty as a condition precedent for reference to the Collector, as unconstitutional. At the hearing, Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the said division bench judgment contended that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the said amount in view of the said division bench judgment. It has, however, come out at the hearing that the said judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court in Government of A.P. Vs. P.Lakshmi Devi[2]. I have carefully perused the said judgment by which the Supreme Court upheld the amendment introduced by A.P. Act 8 of 1998. Therefore the claim of the petitioner for refund made based on the judgment of this Court cannot be sustained. Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner is not interested in getting the instrument registered and, therefore, respondent No.3 may be directed to refund the amount already deposited on behalf of the petitioner. Since the request for refund based on the said reason is not the subject matter of this writ petition, it is not appropriate for this Court to give a mandatory direction to refund the deposited amount on that ground. It is more appropriate that the petitioner makes a representation to respondent No.3 for refund of the stamp duty deposited on the said ground and respondent No.3, thereupon, shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Indian Registration Act, 1908 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation to be ﬁled on behalf of the petitioner and communicate his decision to the GPA of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:16-10-2008 usd [1] 2001(3) ALT 666 [2] 2008(4) SCC 720