IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3484 of 2009 Between: Koganti Sujani W/o. K. Siva Sankara Rao, Hindu R/o. H.No. 31-7-10, Sarala Nagar, Tenali Town Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Registrar and Collector (OB) Under Section 47-A, Indian Stamp Act, Tenali, Guntur District. 2 The Joint Sub-Registrar (Main) The Indian Stamp Act 1899, Tenali, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the impugned Proceedings No. SPL/RC/G6/47-A/14/4 dt. 5-11-2008 passed by the Respondent No.1 together with its connected notice dt. 12-1-2009 issued by the respondent No.2 calling for payment of deficit stamp duty and registration fee levied presuming the future potentiality of the land documented No. P.99/04 with extent of Ac 02-23 cents in Sy.No. 217/1 conversion into house sites of Tenali Town, Guntur District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.N.JAGANMOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner presented a document for registration in respect of an extent of Acs.2.23 cents in Survey No.217/1 of Tenali in the year 2002 before the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Tenali, Guntur District, the second respondent herein. The document was kept pending and it appears that the second respondent forwarded the matter to the District Registrar, Guntur District, the first respondent herein, through letter dated 18-06-2002, obviously under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Act”). The first respondent is said to have caused spot inspection of the property after six years and passed an order dated 05-11-2008 pointing out that the market value of the property comes to Rs.78,05,000/-. The petitioner challenges the said order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The very process of registration of documents was invented to provide a semblance of proof for the transactions. Over a period, the main object has been virtually overshadowed and the process is treated as a source of earning revenues to the Government. The acts and omissions on the part of the respondents have contributed for the delay of nearly seven years in a simple process of ascertaining the proper stamp duty. The whole episode reflects very sad state of affairs. Section 47-A of the Act mandates that the Sub-Registrar shall ascertain the proper market value and while making a reference to the District Registrar require the party concerned to pay half of the market value. Even that step was not complied with. None of the respondents has issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be expected to keep track of the proceedings over a period of seven years. The observations in the impugned proceedings were made on their own assumptions. The first respondent made an observation to the effect that the property has the potential of being put to use as house sites. Even such an exercise was found to be untenable by this Court in Maddula Nagasiromani vs. Subordinate Judge, Kovvur[1]. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. The second respondent is directed to give a notice to the petitioner for appearance, within four (4) weeks from today, and on that day, he shall examine the market value of the property with reference to the records concerned as on the date of the transaction, and take necessary steps in accordance with law soon thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated 25th February, 2009 vrn [1] 1995 (3) ALD 60