IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 24146 of 1998 BETWEEN: 1 U. Shyam Prasad S/o U. Subba Rao, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 2 M. Mohan Das S/o Late Karunakar Rao, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 3 Smt. Aruna Kumari W/o Late M.Ramesh, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 4 Smt. Rama Devi W/o Satyanarayana, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 5 Smt. M.S. Presunamba W/o Late Karunakar Rao, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 6 Sri. M. Srinivas S/o Late Karunakar Rao, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 7 G. Koteshwar Rao S/o Pitchaiah, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 8 M. Bhaskar S/o M. Devendar, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 9 K. Shiva Srinivas S/o K. Manik Rao, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 10 Ch. Raghu S/o Venkatesham, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 11 P. Krishna Reddy S/o V. Narsaiah, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 12 C. Ganesh Babu S/o Seetharamaiah, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 13 P. Ganapathi S/o Shankar Rao, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 14 Y. Koteshwar Rao S/o Venkatappaiah, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 15 Y. Ranga Rao S/o Y. Koteshwar Rao, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 16 Y. Radha Krishna S/o Venkatappaiah, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 17 M. Ravi S/o Ranga Rao, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 18 P.Subba Rao S/o P. Venkateshwarlu, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 19 K. Tarakanth S/o Dasharathramaiah, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 20 Smt. Seethamahalaxmi W/o Late Dasaratharamaiah, R/o 6-3- 251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 21 K.Pochaiah S/o Gandhaiah, R/o 6-3-251/B, Balapura, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep By Its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Collector & Dist. Registrar Under Indian Stamps Act, Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad. 3 The Sub-Registrar, S.R. Nagar, Sub-Registration Office, Hyderabad. 4 The Special Officer & Competent Authority Under ULC Act, Chandravihar Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 5 Smt.Zohra Rahmatullah; Through GPA B.Dananjaya Rao, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 6 Smt. Arjumand Babu Begum, Through GPA B.Dananjaya Rao, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction declaring the action of the 2nd & 3rd Respondent passed in proceedings No.MV/47-A/5215/96, dt.14-7-1998 insisting the petitioners to pay the stamp duty and registration charges, in contrary to the true sale consideration as fixed by the Govt. itself i.e. 4th Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, unjust, without jurisdiction and opposed to public policy and violative of Art.14,19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also violative principles of natural justice and set aside the same of declare the Sec.47-A of Indian Stamp Act as ultra vires of Constitution of India and same is liable to the struck down as null and void and direct the 3rd Respondent to release the documents bearing Nos.P-615, 360 to 365& 368 to 382/96 registered on 1.11.96 in favour of the petitioners and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MRK.M.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Petitioners are the purchasers of different dwelling units from respondents 5 and 6, who were declarants in proceedings No.E/27 to 41/27/96 and E/42 to 46 and 46/A/27/96 as having excess land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ULC Act’). As is permissible under Section 21 of the ULC Act, for the purpose of group housing and for utilization of land for construction of dwelling units to accommodate weaker sections of the society, respondents 5 and 6 were permitted to make constructions and sell the dwelling units @ Rs.25/- per square meter as notified in G.O.Ms.No.1196 Revenue dated 07.07.1998. The fourth respondent also fixed the cost of construction of the 21 dwelling units over the surplus land and the permission under Section 27 (3) of the ULC Act to respondents 5 and 6 was also granted under proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 26.10.1996. The petitioners herein were identified as poor, homeless and weaker sections of the society on the basis of their income and the revenue authorities permitted respondents 5 and 6 to sell the 21 dwelling units to them at the rate as fixed by them as aforesaid. The sale deeds also were executed by respondents 5 and 6 on 01.11.1996 and on presentation of the sale deeds for registration, the third respondent registered the documents, but kept them pending, insisting on payment of stamp duty on the market value. The reference under the Stamp Act referable to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act in proceedings No.MV/47-A/5215/96 dated 14.07.1998 is questioned by the petitioners in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners contend that the rate for selling of the dwelling units having been fixed by the respondents in pursuance of Section 27 of the ULC Act there was no justification for the third respondent to consider that the true market value was not reflected when the sale deeds were presented for registration. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent confirming the factual allegations of the petitioners as mentioned above and also confirming that respondents 5 and 6 were directed to sell the dwelling units @ Rs.25/- per square meter fixed by the Government in the proceedings referred to above. The sale deeds also reflect the said sale consideration. The respondents 1 to 3 have not filed any counter nor there is any representation. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the fourth respondent. 5. The proceedings as mentioned above themselves would show that under Section 21 of the ULC Act surplus excess land was permitted to be constructed upon for the benefit of the weaker sections of the society and the sale consideration of such dwelling units was also fixed statutorily by the fourth respondent. The sale deeds in question, therefore, reflect the statutorily fixed market value as is found in the permission granted to respondents 5 and 6 with respect to construction and sale of the said dwelling units. The provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act would be attracted only in case the sale consideration shown in the document does not reflect true consideration and the Sub-Registrar must have reason to believe that the said document is under valued. On the facts of this case when it is evident that the sale is in conformity with the proceedings of the ULC authorities and at the rate as reflected and directed in the said statutory permission granted by the ULC authorities under Section 21 of the ULC Act, it cannot, therefore, be said that the Sub-Registrar has any reason to believe that the true market value is not reflected. The very reference made by the Sub-Registrar under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act is, therefore, erroneous and cannot be sustained. Consequently, therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and they are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 6. While admitting the writ petition on 01.09.1998 this Court had granted interim direction that the documents presented for registration shall be released by the third respondent on the petitioners furnishing bank guarantee for 50% of the differential amount of stamp duty. Since the impugned proceedings are set aside the petitioners shall be entitled to the release of bank guarantee in their favour and no further claim with respect to stamp duty shall arise with respect to the sale deeds, which are registered in favour of the petitioners. In the result, the writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 11, 2009 DSK