Vanapalli Jagalaxni Venkata Jagalaxmi v. A.Kondal Rao and others

.....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1 in W.P Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the Interim order granted by the Hon'ble court on 27.03.2025 in l.A.No.1 of 2025 in w.P.No,B33 4 ot 2025 and dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merrts. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt KISHORE RAl, LEARNED S FOR M/s DIVYA RAI SOHNI ENIoR CoUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents : FOR AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER -l THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITI ON No .8334 of 2o25 ORDER: l. This Writ Petirion is filed questioning the impugned Notice No.O2l5t4/2025, dated 12.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the stamp duty of Rs.60,50O/- @ O.S% of the consideration value of Rs. 1,21,OO,OOO/_ along with penalty of Rs.l,OOO/-, totalling to Rs.61,5OO/-, for impounding the Agreement of Sale dated 20.O9.2O2L and sought a direction to the respondent No.3 to coliect the stamp duty as per the provisions of Article 6_4. of Schedule-l of the Indian Stamp Act, 1g99. I

2. Heard Sri Kishore Rai, learned. Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The learned. Senior Counsel for the petitioner would si-rbmit that the petitioner had entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 2O.Og.2OZl to purchase agricultural land 2 sr(, J W.P.No.8334 OF 2O25 ..1 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.02.08 guntas, 1n Sy.No. l3O I Al4, situated at Reginthal Village of Sadshivpet Mandal, Sanga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as subject property') from one B.Bhaskar Reddy and when the vendor of the petitioner refused to execute the sale deed, the petitioner filed a suit against his Vendor and another vide O.S.No.111 of 2023 on t]ne file of II Additional District Judge, Salga Reddy for specihc performance. In the said suit, the petitioner intended to mark the said Agreement of Sa,le which was engrossed on a stamp paper of Rs.20/-, and the II- Additional District Judge sent the said docr-rrnent to the Respondent No.3 for impounding the document. Thereafter the respondent No.3 issued impugned Notice No.G2l51412025, dated 12.O3.2025 directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty of Rs.60,500/- @ O.5% of the consideration value of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- along with penalty of Rs. 1,OOO/-, totalling to Rs.61,500/- for impounding the Agreement of Sale dated 2O.O9.2O21 and further intimated either to pay the amount or to hle the srr, J W.P.No.8334 OF 2O2S objections on the determination of the stamp duty and penalty. In response thereto, the petitioner had submitted his objections on O3.O3.2O25 along with relevant citations, in view of the fact that the agreement of sale is in respect of agricultural land and the Stamp Duty in the State of Telangana, as per 6_.4 (3) of Schedule-l of the Indian Stamp Act, is only Rs.2O0/- and the difference is only Rs. 1gO/_ and therefore calculating the amount @ 05% on total consideration value is perse lllegal.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for petitioner would further submit that the respondent No.Q without considering the objections and citations had passed impugned order. As the property sought to be purchased by the petitioner is only an agricultural land and the stamp duty is payable under Article 6_A (3) of Scheule_1 of the Indian Stamps Act which is only Rs.2O0/_ and the provisions of Article 6_8 of Schedule_l of the Indian Stamps Act as claimed by the respondent No.3 are not 4 SK, J W.P.No.8334 OF 2O25 applicable and prayed to a-llow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order 5, The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the foilowing citations

7. Shaik Jani Pasha Vs. Sto:te of Telangana 1 2. Vanapalli Jagalaxni @ Venkata Jagalaxmi Vs. A.Kondal Rao and others 2

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration basing on thd counter fited by the respondent No.3 ',t'ould submit that the document sought to be impounded was examined by the I respondent No.3, which is in respect of agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac'2.08 guntas in Sy.No. l3OlA/4, situated at Reginthal Village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Sanga Reddy District and after examination it was held that the said document is an Agreement of Sale in respect of immovable property coupled with Power of Attorney to sell the same and thereby the said document I 2023 SCC Online TS 632 'z 2014 (1) ALT 356 - 5 SI(, J W.P.No.8334 OF 2O2S is liable for Stamp Duty under Article 6 (B) of Schedule_ 1A to Indian Stamp Act read with Article 42 (e), but the notice was erroneously issued to pay the deficit Stamp duty of Rs.60,50O/ - @ O.S% on the consideration of Rs.1,21,00,OOO1- along with a penalty of Rs. 1,O00/_, in fact the leviable duty under Article 6(8) read wtth a2 @) comes to Rs. 1,2l,OOO/-.

7. The learned Assistant Government pleader would further submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.59, dated

20.O7.2O2L Sale Agreement without possession, if relating to sale of property without possession coupled with Power of Attorney to sell falls under Articlq 6(8) read with Articte 42 (g and chargeable to Stamp Duty @ l%o on the market value or consideration whichever is higher.

8. The learned Assistant Government pleader would further submit that the interim order dated 27.03.2025 passed by this Court in I.A.No. I of 2O2S in Wp No.g334 was not complied with in vjew of an order passed by this Court in CRP No.859 of 2O2O in a similar case, as the 6 SK, J W.P.No.8334 OF 2O25 I .1 present case where it is clearly held that the sale of any immovable property falls under Article 6-8 of Schedule- 1A and not under Article-6-A or 6-C and aggrieved by the same the petitioner has initiated Contempt Case in this regard ald there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition. g. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that in the instant writ petition the petitioner is questioning the impugned Notice dated

12.03.2025 issued by the respondent No 3 directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty of Rs.60,5O0/' @ O'5o/o of the consideration value of Rs. 1,21,0d,Q00/- along with penalty of Rs. 1,OOO I tolal amounting to Rs'61,500/- for impounding the Agreement of Sale dated 20'O9'2021 presented by the Petitioner. lO. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not liable to pay the stamp duty as directed by the respondent No.3 and he is liable to pay only an amount of Rs.2OO/- as per Article 6-4, (3) of Schedule-I of the 7 SK, J W.P.No.8334 OF 2O2S Indian Stamp Act on the Agreement of Sale and the difference arnount payable by the petitioner is only Rs. 180/- as the Agreement of Sale is in respect of the Agricultural land without any constructions or structures thereon and ca_lculating the amount @ O.S% on the consideration value ts per se illegal. 1 1. On the other 'hand the contention of the learned Assistant Government pleader is that the document presented by the petitioner comes under 6(8) of Schedule-IA of the Indian Stamp Act and in fact the leviable duty under Article 6(8) read with 42 (g) comes to 7%o on the consideration or market va_lue whichever is higher, which comes to Rs. 1,21,000/- ' u." per G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 2O.O7.2021 and further stating that the Agreement of Sale without possession, if relating to sa-le of property without possession coupled with power of Attorney to sell falls under Article 6(8) read with 42 (g) of the Indian Starnp Act and the chargeable to Stamp duty is @ l% on the market value or consideration whichever is higher. \ a sr, J W.P.No.8334 OF 2O25 I

12. The relevant portion of Article 6-4 of the Indian Stamp Act is extracted as under: Stam Dut Description of Instrument SCHEUDLE I-A -AsA licable in Telan ana Proper StamP DutY n

1. xxxx

2. xxxx

3.xxxxx

4.xxxxxx

5. xoo<xx 6. Agreement or an Agreement provided for: Memorandum of not otherwise (A) Where the value : (i) does not exceed Rs.5,OO0/ 1ii1 exceeds Rs.5,0O0/- but not exce ed Rs.20,000 (iii) exceed Rs.2O,00O/- but not exceed Rs.5O,000 (iv) exceeds Rs.50,0O0/ - ruction of a (B) tf relatiig to const house or building including a multi- unit house or building or u[it of of a apartment/ flat/Portiotr multistoried building or developmeut/ sale of any other immovable proPerty (C) In any other case to Rs.2,0O,O00 for value up to Rs.50,OOO exceeding L ([or value excecding Rs-50- Rs.100/- (For value Rs-50 000 Rs. 2OO l- Rs.20,OO 000 Rs.200/- (for value exceeding Rs.2,00,O00 Five Rupees lor one hundred rupees or part thereof on the market value or the the ProPosed estimated cost of construction/ developmen t of such property as the case maY be, as mentioned in the agreement or the value arrived at in accordance with the Schedule of rates prescribed by the Public Works Department authoriti.es whichever is hi Rs.2OO/ (Agrcements not suscePti bte for value In the instant case, the document presented by 13. the petitioner for imPounding is an Agreement of Sale -, 9 sr, J W.P.No.8334 OF 2025 with regard to agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.08 guntas in Sy.No.3O/A/4, situated at Regintha-l Village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, which is the subject matter in O.S.No.ill of 2023 on the file of Il-Additional District Judge, Sanga Reddy filed for specihc performance of Agreement of Sa,le dated 20.09.2027. As per the schedule of properer, mentioned in the subject Agreement of Sa_le is agricultural land and there is no mention in the said agreement with regard to structures or buildings and without looking into the sarne, the respondent No.3 issued impugned notice directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.61,5OO/-. But in the.orrit.. respondents contended that the petitioner has to pay stamp duty on the subject document as per Article 6(8) of the Indian Stamp Act and the said contention of the respondents is contrar5r to the orders passed by this Court in Shaik Jo;ni pc.shq. Vs. Stolte of Telangana (supra I/, wherein this Court held that: \ I 70 slr, J w.P.No.8334 OF 2O25 i .l "8. In the light of the aboue settled legal position and taking into considerotion the fact that the there is no dispute that the subject matter of the Agreenents of sale in question is only open land and no constructors are existing thereon, it is only Article 6(A) of Schedule-l (A) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 applies, but not Article 6(8) of Schedule (B) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act as claimed by the respondent No.2, the impugned notices are set aside" In the instant case also the subject matter of the Agreement of Sale is also agricultural land ar-rd no constructions or structures are existing thereon and therefore Article 6-4' of Schedule-IA of the Stamps Act applies. I

14. In view of the above Iinding, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Notice No.G2 l5l4 12025 dated

12.03.2025 is set aside by directing the respondent No.3 to collect the stamp duty on the subject Agreement of Sale dated 2O.O9.2O21 as per the provisions of 6-.4 of Schedule-l of the Indian Stamps Act within four (4) weeks lrom the date of copy of this order. No order as to COStS. 77 SK, J W.P.No.8334 OF 2O2S Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. To ,TRUE COPY// SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ./. c?,-- SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, Govt. of Telangana.

3. The District Registrar, lvledak at Pantencheru. 4. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to I\//s DIVYA RAI SOHNI, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies SA GJP I I - -..--:---.-:-..:--. _ - - -;'!i[. ;; j.iri'r:- .-.::.-.... '''-.:''1- . ,-..-::. .i )\\ r i stP 2$6 i'll 1,.\ . .ij .) i v,,- 't: HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 ORDER WP.No.8334 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1 r H