IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4239 OF 2006 Between: Valiveti Satyavani …Petitioner A n d The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4239 OF 2006 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 03-07-2006 in C.M.A.No.1 of 2005, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed, confirming the order dated 24-02-2004 in proceedings No.MV/1492/2004, on the file of District Registrar and Collector, Ongole. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein was the successful bidder in an auction conducted by the authorized officer of State Bank of Hyderabad, Vijayawada under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 (Securitization Act) in respect of an extent of Ac.1-15 cents together with a shed bearing D.No.46/2 situate at Pusapadu village. The petitioner became the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.3,03,003/-. He paid the entire sale consideration and obtained sale certificate on 15-12-2003. The Sub- Registrar, Inkollu took objection for registration and referred the matter to the District Registrar under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’). The District Registrar, by order dated 24-02-2004, held that the market value of the property sold was Rs.17,00,600/- and directed the petitioner herein to pay stamp duty of Rs.1,87,090/- after deducting the stamp duty already paid. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2005 and the learned Senior Civil Judge, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the District Registrar failed to consider that the proviso to sub- section (6) of Section 47(A) of the Act contains an exemption in respect of instruments executed by or on behalf of the State Government or Central Government or any authority or body incorporate by or under any law for the time being in force and wholly owned by Central or State Government and the market value of any property shall be the value shown in such instrument. 5. In the impugned order of the District Registrar, it is stated that the said exemption is not attracted in respect of the subject document and, therefore, the petitioner has to pay the stamp duty as per the market value entered in the guidelines register. The appellate Court also confirmed the same by observing that the banking system in India is governed by Indian Banks Association, which is not one of the wings of Central or State Governments and, on the other hand, it is an independent body incorporate and the auction conducted by the State Bank of Hyderabad cannot be similar to the auction conducted by the Central or State Governments or its wings. It was further held in the impugned order of the learned Senior Civil Judge that the exemption contained in Section 47(A) of the Act is not applicable to any transaction between private parties and as such the auction conducted by the private agency i.e., State Bank of Hyderabad does not come within the meaning of Government wing. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the learned Senior Civil Judge erred in holding that the State Bank of Hyderabad is governed by Indian Banks Association and is not under the control of the Central Government and ought to have held that the authorized officer under State Bank of Hyderabad under Section 13 of the Securitization Act is an authority coming within the purview of proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 47(A). 7. Sub-section (6) of Section 47(A) of the Act states that for the purpose of the Act the market value of the property shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Collector or the appellate authority, as the case may be, such property would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of any instrument referred in sub-section (1). It is to be noted that the subject property was purchased by the petitioner in an open auction conducted by the authorized officer of the State Bank of Hyderabad in exercise of the statutory powers conferred under the Securitization Act. The proviso to sub-section (6), as amended by Act 8 of 1998 which came into force from 23- 04-1998, states that in respect of instruments executed by or on behalf of the Central Government or State Government or any authority or body incorporate by or under law for the time being in force and wholly owned by the Central/State Government the market value of any property shall be the value of the property shown in such instrument. 8. The question, which then arises for consideration, is whether the State Bank of Hyderabad which is admittedly a body incorporate under law is wholly owned by Central/State Government so as to attract the operation of the proviso. 9. I n UPENDRA CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY AND ANOTHER v. UNITED BANK OF INDIA[1], the Apex Court held as follows: “The respondent is a nationalized bank. Roughly in all there are 25 nationalized banks. The concept of any customary bonus is unknown to nationalized banks. All the nationalized banks are wholly owned undertakings of the Government of India.” 10. In K.SIVARAMAIAH v. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, URBAN CUDDAPAH[2], this Court held as follows: “The object underlying Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act is to neutralize the effect of undervaluation of the immovable property conveyed under registered instruments of sale, or exchange, or gift, or partition, or settlement. In the instant case there could be no question of undervaluation of the property as the property was sold in public auction in favour of the appellant. The expression used as “truly” and not “properly” or “correctly”. The consideration, the appellant parted with for purchase of the property, it is not denied was truly setforth in the instrument. It therefore, follows that the reference made by the Sub- Registrar, Pullampet is bad.” In the present case also, the property was purchased by the petitioner in a public auction conducted by the authorized officer of the State Bank of Hyderabad which is a nationalized bank and an undertaking wholly owned by the Government of India. The proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 47(A) of the Act is, therefore, clearly attracted and as per the said proviso, the market value of such property shall be the value shown in the instrument. The reference made by the Sub-Registrar to the District Registrar is, therefore, bad in law. 11. The impugned order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, holding that the State Bank of Hyderabad is governed by Indian Banks Association and is not an undertaking of the Central Government, is erroneous and is, therefore, unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is liable to pay the stamp duty and registration fees payable for the sale price shown in the instrument by virtue of proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 47(A) of the Act. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th April, 2011 Lrkm [1] AIR 1985 SC 1010 [2] 1989(1) APLJ 388