IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.212 of 2007 BETWEEN The District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps – cum – Collector, Kurnool and another. ... PETITIONERS AND M/s. Maruthi Traders, Kurnool. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners : GP FOR ARBITRATION Counsel for the Respondent: MR. K. RATHANGAPANI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is at the instance of the District Registrar and Joint Sub- Registrar, Kurnool, aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act (for short ‘the Act’) – Principal Senior Civil Judge, passed in C.M.A.No.1 of 1996 dated 05.08.2002, impugned herein, whereunder the appellate authority had set aside the order dated 12.01.1996 passed by the Collector under Section 47- A of the Act. 2. The subject matter of reference is sale deed marked as Ex.A1 dated 08.06.1995 whereunder the respondent herein purchased an extent of 1165 sq. yards together with sheds for total value of Rs.11,52,000/-, which works out to Rs.600/- per sq. yard. The said document though executed, was kept pending in view of the dispute as to stamp duty and the said dispute was referred to the Collector under the Act. By order dated 12.01.1996, the Collector found, on personal inspection, that the property is in the interior and away from the main road and the value on the main road is fixed at Rs.2,750/- per sq. yard. But as this property has no drainage and other amenities and not useful for commercial purpose, the Collector fixed the value at Rs.1,450/- per sq. yard and demanded the deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fee from the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal being C.M.A.No.1 of 1996, which was allowed under the impugned order. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned Government Pleader tried to sustain the order of the Collector on the ground that the property in question is a commercial property described as godowns whereas the sales relied by the respondent for the relevant period marked as Exs.A3 and A4 are for residential purpose. He also pointed out that the inspection of the property by the Collector has been duly applied while assessing the value and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Collector. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent has marked Exs.A3, A4 and other documents, which are contemporaneous sale deeds. While Ex.A3 is dated 25.07.1995 for an extent of 483.9 sq. yards (see para 17 of the impugned order) from the same survey number, which works out to Rs.290/- per sq. yard; Ex.A4 is dated 06.04.1998 covering an extent of 530 sq. yards (see para 19 of the impugned order) from the same survey number and works out to Rs.375/- per sq. yard. He also submits that the petitioners have not produced any relevant documents. However, Exs.B1 to B3 produced by them relate to documents registered in 1999 – 2001, which has no proximity with Ex.A1 sale of 1995 in question. 6. I have considered the submissions on either side. It is not in dispute that from the same survey number there have been several sales as evident from Exs.A3, A4, A5 etc. For our purpose, if we consider Ex.A3, which is close to Ex.A1 sale in question, the rate shown is Rs.290/- per sq. yard whereas under Ex.A1 the rate works out to Rs.600/- per sq. yard. Secondly, under Ex.A4, which is about three years after Ex.A1 also relate to the same survey number, the rate shown works out to Rs.375/- per sq. yard, which is much less than what is shown in Ex.A1. If really, the transaction under Ex.A1 is undervalued and is not in conformity with the market value guidelines, one would expect that Exs.A3 and A4 also would have been referred under Section 47-A of the Act, as the value shown therein is much less, though both the said sales are subsequent to Ex.A1. 7. Per contra, Exs.A3 and A4 sale deeds were registered without any objection as to valuation. It cannot, therefore, be said that Exs.A3 and A4 are not comparable to Ex.A1 for the purpose of ascertaining the current market value. In addition to the above, the petitioners have not produced any sale transaction for the relevant period of June 1995 or proximate thereto. The documents Exs.B1 and B2 are of the year 2001 whereas Ex.B3 is of the year 1999. The aforesaid documents cannot be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the property as in June 1995. Ex.B4 is market value guidelines, which is general in nature. The appellate Court, therefore, has rightly considered these aspects and has rightly set aside the order of the Collector, as no evidence or basis for the conclusions reached by the Collector are found on record. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 8, 2011 DSK