THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5767 OF 2009 DATED:19-11-2010. Between M.Dharma Reddy … Petitioner And Joint Sub Registrar No.1, Sub-Registrar’s Office, Kakinada, East Godavari District. …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5767 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 05-11-2009 in C.M.A.S.R.No.4520 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in confirming the order in proceedings No.G2/394/2006, dated 30-06-2008 on the file of the Collector-cum- District Registrar, Kakinada and directing the petitioner herein to deposit the difference of stamp duty as amended by Section 47-A (2) proviso within one month from 05-11-2009 and duly rejecting his prayer to give bank guarantee for the difference stamp duty. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein contended that the purpose of filing appeal has become illusory in view of the fact except for salt pans, the land in question cannot be used for any other purpose and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for respondent contended that the District Collector has determined the market value basing on the valuation of the Sub-Registrar and therefore for the purpose of filing the appeal under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the purchaser has to pay the differential stamp duty, that some constructions are going on near the land in question and hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 4. The petitioner intends to file an appeal before the District Court challenging the order of the District Collector passed under Section 47-A (a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by A.P. Act 8 of 1998 proviso. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has to pay differential stamp duty arrived by the Sub-Registrar in order to present appeal and market value of the land so fixed by the District Collector is arbitrary, he states that in stead of depositing the differential stamp duty, he may be permitted to furnish bank guarantee so that rights of the parties can be safe-guarded till the disposal of the appeal. 5. By virtue of Amendment of A.P. Act 8 of 1998 proviso, under Section 47-A (a) of Indian Stamp Act, the condition precedent is that the petitioner in entertaining the appeal has to pay differential stamp duty as determined by the competent authority. The proviso to sub- section 2 of A.P. Act 8 of 1988 of Section 47 (A) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as follows: “provided that no appeal unless and until the difference, if any, in the amount of duty is paid by the person liable to pay the same, after deducting the amount already deposited by him.” Whether the land in question was not used for any other purpose except for salt pans or whether it is used for making constructions as contended by the learned Government Pleader or whether the land in question comes within the purview of Coastal Regulation Zone, are the matters to be decided when the appeal is entertained. That aspect of the case cannot be decided at this stage. In GOVERNMENT OF A.P. V SMT. P.LAXMI DEVI [1], it was held that Section 47 (a) of Indian Stamp Act as amended by A.P. Act 8 of 1988 is constitutionally valid. When a statute prescribes payment of differential stamp duty so as to file an appeal, that procedure has to be followed. Therefore, question of furnishing bank guarantee does not arise. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, considering the fact that huge amount is involved, three months time is granted from today for payment of differential stamp duty as asserted by the District Collector. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED:19.11.2010 Hsd [1] AIR 2008 sc 1826