l.Dr.G.VenkatReddv(DiedasperLRsP4andP5) v. l. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature 61 vrrit of Ma ndamus declaring the Notice No 1436/G112009 dt 31-10- 2009 issued by,the 3rd respondent purported to be in exercise of section 41-A of the lndian Stanrp Act l Bgg calling upon the petitioners to pay deficit stamp duty in respect of docrlment No T41sl2oo7 dl22-05-2007 as irrational, arbitrary without jurisdiction an<l in violation of the provisions of the lndian stamp Act,1B99 and consequentlY set aside the same- NO: P.N 52 0F Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fik;d in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased stay all further proceecings in pursuance of the Notice No 1436/G112009 dt 31-10-2009 issued by the llrd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition' COUNSEI fOr tTrE PEtitiONETS: SRI PRITHVI RAJ FOR SRI B'ADINARAYANA RAO counsel for the Respondents: sRl H.RAKESH KUMAR, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OT TF}LANGANA AT ITYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28573 OF 2gO9 DATE: 23.12.20125 Between: G. Venkat Reddy (died per LRs) and four others. AND Petitioners The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary and three others. .Respondents 0IrIIIsIr:E Heard Sri Frithvi Raj, learned counsel representing Sri B. Adinarayarla, learned counsel for petitioners, appeared through video conference, as well as Sri H. Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents more particularly respondent No.3 in issuing notice No. 1436 lGl /2OO9 dated 31. 10.2009, calling upon the I 2 GPK,J W.P.No.28573 of 2009 petitioner:i to submit explanation and to pay deficit stamp duty amountin;g to Rs.1 ,1o,34,230/-, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased an extent of Ac.2.ocr of land in sy.No .172 of Hydernagar"Village, Balanagar Mandal, Flanga Reddy District, under a registered sale deed dated

26.12.2Cl06, for valuable sale consideration. The said document, though presented before respondent No.4 on 27 -Ol -2OO7 , was not immediately registered. by respondent No-4. The learned counsel for the pe:titioners submit that the vendors of the petitioners had purchased the said land under an unregistered assignment deed dated 29 11.1995, which was duly recognized by the Court, and accordingly agreed to sell a part of the said land to the petitioner-s. There were certain disputes pending with respect to the said property between the vend.ors of the petitioners and some third parties regarding title making it clear that the said property was the subject matter of litigation. However, respond.e,nt No.2 issued a notice dated 31.10.2009 stating that, during the course of spot inspection of the property, it was detected that the property was located on the main road abutting the National Highway and that, as per the Market Value Guidelines Register, a rate of Rs.15,OOO/- per square yard was / .i' a? ./;' 3 GPK,] W.PN1.28573 of 2@9 'n applicable to the said property. In contrast, in the document in question, the value adopted was Rs.4,000/- per square yard, and the propert5r was shown as falling within Ram Naresh Colony, which is situated behind the property. By showing an incorrect locality, an inappropriate market value was adopted for registration of the document. As such, the propert5r was liable to be valued at Rs.15,OOO/- per square yard, and the market value of the property was determined to be Rs.14,52,O0,000/-, on which a deficit stamp duty of Rs.L,O4,54,4OO|- and a deficit registration fee of Rs.5,79,B3Ol-, totaling Rs.1 ,1O,34,230/-, was payable. Accordingly, the impugned notice .was issued calling upon the petitioners to appear in person and pay the deficit stamp duty or put forth objections in writing.

4. l,earned counsel for the petitioners asserts that respondent No.3 ought not to have issued the notice under Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act) since, as per Section 47, there was no occasion for respondent No.3 to exercise powers under Section 41-A of the said Act. For the exercise of power under Section 4L-A of the Act, 1899, the prerequisite is that there should be a mistake on the part of the Registering Officer, which mistake should be remarked upon either by the T ,I i I I i i I i 4 GPK] W.P.No.28573 of 2009 collector or by the Audit Party, thereby empowering the Collector to issue a show-cause notice. However, in the present case, the proceedings were commenced basecl on a complaint by a third party, an.d not on any remark by the collector or any objection raised by the Audit Party. Therefore, the impugned notice ought not to he-ve been issued under the provisions of Section 4l-A of the Act, I899.

5. The learned counsel further contended that the power under section 47-A(31 of the Act can be exercised only by the collector suo moto, even after registration of the document. However, such power can be exercised only within a period of two years frorn the date of registration of the document. The learned counsel further contended that the respondents were unnecessarily harassing the petitioners by demanding deficit stamp duty and, therefore, prayed that this court may set aside the impugned notice demanding payment of the deficit stamp duty, whi,:h is not justified.

6. It is pertinent to note that this court, vide orders dated 3o.l2.2oct9, granted interim directions as prayed for and on 25.Lo.202'5, this court granted a last opportunity to the respondents to file a counter-aflidavit on l4.Ll.2o2s. The time 5 GPK) W.P.No.28573 of 2ilD (1 for filing the counter-affidavit was further extended on 27.11.2025, and the matter came up for hearing on 22-L2'2O25' However, till date, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Therefore, in view of the non-Iiling of the counter affidavit by the respondents, this court takes serious note of the s€une and thereby forfeits their right to file a counter affidavit' 7. However, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petiti5ners is that the power under Section 47-A(31 of the Act can be exercised. only by the collector suo moto, even after registration of the document, and that such power caf1 be exercised. only within a period of two years from the date of registration of the d.ocument. The relevant portion of the Act is extracted hereunder: 41-A. Recouery of Stamp Duta not leuied or short leuied._(1)Whereafierthecommencementofthelndian Stamp (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986' ang instrument chargeable with dutg rE"s not been dulg stamped" and. registered by ang Regi'stering Officer bA mistake and. remarked as such by the collector or qna audit partA, the Cottector mag, within fiue gears from the date of registration serue o' nohce on ttw person bg whom tlrc dutg was paAable requiring him to slaw j ! I t i i I I I I I I I I I i t I I i I i i i i i i : I ] 6 GPK] W.P.No.28573 of 2009 cause whA the proper dutA or the amount required to mc,.ke up the same slwuld not be collected from him.

8. The learned counsel contended that the sale deed was executed by the petitioners on 26.L2.2OO6; whereas the impugnerl notice was issued on 31.10.2009, i.e-, within a period of three years, which is not justified.

9. The: contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitione:rs that a wrong provision has been referred to are untenable. It is a settled position of law that merely because an incorrect provision has been mentioned in the impugned order, it cannot by itself be a ground to hold that the applicati,ln is not maintainable or that the impugned notice issued b'y the respondents is a nullity. It is well settled that where an:r authority has the porrver under law, the exercise of such po'wer is not vitiated merely because the source of power was not specifically referred to or a wrong provision of law was cited, so long as the power does exist and can be traced tc, a lawful source. Admittedly, the respondents have the powe:r to issue the notice. On a perusal of the impugned notice detted 31.10.2009, it is clear that the petitioners were required to appear either in person or through counsel on 7 GP|CI W.P-No.28573 of 2009 I 1 {l

16.1 1 .2OOg at 1 1.OO a.m. before the District Registrar, thereby enabling them to submit their objections, if any. Since the present impugned notice is only by way

10. of a notice, and in view of the genuine submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are at liberty to submit a detailed explanation, including their submissions and particulars regarding the payment of requisite stamp duty on earlier occasions, and to put forth their respective contentions before the concerned respondents.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to appear before respondent No.3 and submit all objections within a period of three (03) \ weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon submission of such objections, the respondents are directed to consid.er the s€une positively, including the aspect of payment of requisite stamp duty, and to pass a reasoned order within a period of four (04) weeks thereof in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that the respondents shall provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing by foltowing the due process of law' t t ,? / 1r B cPtcJ W.P.No.28573 of 2M9 Miscetlaneous applications, if any pending, shafl stand r- closed. I To, SD/-K. MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I ,,TRUE COPY/' OFFICER

1. The Prircipal secretary, Revenue Registration & Stamps and Department Secretarriat, HYderabad'

2. The commissioner & lnspector General of, Registration of Stamps' Hyderabad 3 The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District Moosapet X Roads Hyderabad 4. The Joint sub Registrar-1, office of the District Registrar Ranga Reddy District Moosa;ret, X Roads,

5.oneC(}toSRlB.ADINARAYANARAo,Advocate[oPUC]

6.1y7gQ{}StoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hydererbad . [OUT]

7. Two Crf CoPies PMKw

1.: t HIGH COURT DATED i2311212025 ORDER WP.No.28573 of 2009 1 6 l4AR ztrl[ ) ) t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOIJT COSTS .sD 'rh',b ' :lu