THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.24073 of 2010 Date : 2-11-2010 Between : Smt.J.Vijayalakshmi and another .. Petitioners and Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P.Venugopal Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.24073 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings dated 28-8-2010 issued by respondent No.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. When the petitioners presented a document for registration, not being satisfied with the quantum of stamp duty paid, respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceeding by which he called upon the petitioners to pay 50% of the deficit stamp duty under proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Act”). At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to certificate dated 19-8-2010 issued by respondent No.6 in support of the plea of the petitioners that the lands proposed to be sold under the sale deed are agricultural lands and therefore respondent No.2 is not justified in treating them as house sites for the purpose of stamp duty and registration. Under Section 47-A(1) of the Act, where the market value of the property which is the subject matter of instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, or that the value arrived at by the registering authority as per the guidelines prepared or caused to be prepared by the Government from time to time has not been adopted by the parties, he may keep pending such instrument and refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value of the property and for proper duty payable thereon. Under the proviso to the said provision, no reference shall be made by the registering authority unless an amount equal to 50% of the deficit duty arrived at by him is deposited by the party concerned. As respondent No.2 has evidently believed that the valuation made by the petitioners does not reflect the true market value of the property, he has invoked the above noted proviso to Section 47-A(1) of the Act and called upon the petitioners to deposit 50% of the deficit duty for reference to the Collector. In my opinion, it is not appropriate for this court to adjudicate on the true market value of the property when the statute prescribed the procedure for determination of such dispute. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioners are permitted to pay the amount as demanded by respondent No.2. On receipt of such payment, respondent No.2 shall refer the dispute to respondent No.3 who shall, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of reference, decide the true and correct market value and communicate the same to the petitioners and respondent No.2. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.30810 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 2-11-2010 AM