THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3604 OF 2005 DT.26.04.2010 Between: State, represented by the District Collector, Srikakulam and two others. ……………….Petitioners Vs. Reddy Rama Murthy ……………..Respondent O R D E R: This revision is filed against the order passed by the Prinipal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in C.M.A.No.1 of 2004 dated 26.08.2004. I have hard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the respondent. With regard to an extent of Ac 0.59 cents of land, i.e., Ac 0.16 cents in S.No.19/12, Ac 0.43 cents in S.No.19/18 of Balaga Village in Srikakulam District, the District Registrar and Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, valued the land at Rs.8,56,680/-. The respondent being aggrieved by the same, filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2004, which was disposed of by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, by reducing the value to Rs.2,83,200/-. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners preferred the present revision petition contending that the judgment passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam is contrary to law and thereby seeking to revise the said judgment. Under Rule 5 (b) of the A.P.Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 the Collector shall, as far as possible, have also regard to the following points in determining the provisional market value or consideration in the case of house sites: i) “the general value of house sites in the locality; ii) nearness to roads, railway station, bus route; iii) nearness to market, shops and the like; iv) amenities available in the place like public offices, hospitals and educational institutions; v) development activities, industrial improvements in the vicinity; vi) land tax and valuation of sites with reference to taxation records of the local authorities concerned; vii) any other features having a special bearing on the valuation of the site; and viii) any special features of the case represented by the parties.” In the impugned order, it was specifically mentioned that during the last five years, no sale transactions had taken place in the locality, where the site in question is situated. It is also mentioned in the order that the land in question is in low lying area and it has to be levelled. It is also mentioned in the order that since the land in question was originally purchased as a cultivable land but not as a house site, the Collector himself was of the view that atleast Rs.25/- has to be spent per square yard for developing the land and to make it fit as a house site. The learned appellate authority considered that for raising the level of the land and making it as house site, atleast an amount of Rs.100/- per square yard has to be spent and made it to Rs.100/- per square yard. While fixing the market value the appellate authority also took into consideration the fact that 1/3rd of the land has to be set apart for formation of roads and common places. The appellate authority following the material placed on record and considering the issues in the right perspective, held that for converting the land into house site, an amount of Rs.100/- per square yard has to be spent and thereby reduced the valuation from Rs.275/- to Rs.100/-. The order is neither unreasonable nor contrary to the rules. This court, therefore, in exercise of its powers of revision is not supposed to interfere with the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. For the reasons aforementioned, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. ________________ R.KANTHA RAO J., Dt.26.04.2010 tjs