Ravi Suri v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 a order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus declaring the impugned Endorsement No. 2780/lMP 12025 dated 13.05.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent whereby rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 08.04.2025 for impounding of the original unregistered agreement of sale with possession dated 02.02.2000 by collecting deficit stamp duty from the petitioner on the ground of circular instructions vide circular Memo No. G111286012008 Dt 27.01.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of lndian Stamp Act 1899 and the reported Judgment ( 2008 ) 4 SCC 720 and same is liable to be set aside and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to rmpound the unregistered agreement of sale with possession dated 02.02.2000 of petitioner by collecting requisite stamp duty and release the same without reference to the circular instructions of the 2nd respondent vide circular Memo No. G1112860/2008 dated 27 01 2009 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to impound the unregistered agr,:ement of sale with possession daled 02.02 2000 of petitioner by collecting requisite stamp duty and penalty and release the same without reference to the circular instructions of the 2nd respondent vide circular lrlemo No. G111286012008 dated 27.01 .2009 forthwith, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER -i THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.L6L42 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents. With their consent, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2. Learned counsel appearing for thc petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.43737 of 2022, dated 09.12.2022 artd requested to pass similar order in this matter also.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration did not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to \ \ disposal of W.P.No.43737 ol 2022, dated O9'L2'2O22 and requested to pass appropriale orders.

4. In view of the submissions made by the both sides and by following the Orders passed by this Court in \ 2 - W.P.No.43737 ol 2022, datr:d 09.12.2022, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugnerl Endorsement No.2780lIMPl2O2S, datcd 13.05.2025 and, r,he respondent No.3-District Registrar is directed to impound the agreement of sa-le dated 02.02.2000 produced by the petttioner within a period of four weeks from the date of presr:ntation of the same by the petitioner by collecting deficit sr-arnp duty and penalty thereon under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. No order as to costs.

5. Registry is directed to annex copy of the order in W.P.No.43737 of 2022, d,ated. Og.l2.2)t22 along with this order 6 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pe.eding in this writ petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII sD/- A T NA KRISHNA REGISTRAR \ecrroru oFFtcER 'lnspec1.r The Principal Secretary Revenue ( Stamps and Registlation) Department, Secretariat Buildinqs Hvderabaci f C The Commisstoner and M,ozamzahi Ma r ket. Hy_dera bad Tela ngana StaiE.-' I he District Resistrar, stamps and Rejistrations Medchar Markakgiri District at Medchal, One CC to SRI M.DURGA PRASAD, Advocare IOPUCI TWO CCS tO GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION 'Higr, State o_l T^elangana, at Hyderabafl IOUTI Two CD Copies

6.^.ral of Registratior r and Stamps, *' COUrt fOr thE (Along with a copy of the order in Wp.No.43737 of 2022, dated 09.12.2022l- To 1 2 J 4 5 b M- HIGH COURT DATED:1610612025 ORDER WP.No.16142 ot 2025 o1'T rrr sI4 ts F\( ... C () ?4;ut ry5 ,9 '+ * D.. tr6 y,-.11r,('l r DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS il, 4 /' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.43737 of 2022 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the unregistered sale deed executed by one Pingala Subba Rao S/o P.V.Raghava Rao in favour of the petitioner herein is presented before respondent No.3 herein requesting for impounding/validating the same by collecting def-rcit stamp duty. But, the same was not entertained by respondent No.3 by passing an impugned order bearing letter No.8730/E1- Irlnp/2021, dated O1.02.2022.Th^e said order reads as under: 'With reference to the application submittod for adjudication of unregistered (deficitly stamped) Sale Deed executed by Pingala Subba Rao on 16.06,1988. it is informed that the instrument is date of back of 34 yeaJs, the genuinenty of starnp paper could not be verilied with records as the period of preservation stamp vendor records, over and destroyed. The claim appears to be time barred without proof of title over the properry- Further on verification of indexes of the department Sri Pinga] Subba Rao S/o P.V.Raghava Rao was already sold the property (referred in unregistered SaJe Deed) through Sale Deed registered as No's.1566/1992 dated 2s.06.1992, 1597 /1992 dated 25.06.1992, 1628/ 1992, dated 29.06.1992, ar,d 1675/ 1992 d,ated, O4.O7.1992 at S.R.O Chikkapally. 2 Therefore, in view of the above reasons the applicarion lbr adjudication of the unregistered Sale Deed dated 16.0rt.198g, which was executed prior to the registered Salc Deed,:, dated 23.06. 1992, 25 -06. 1992, 29.06. 1992 and, 04.O7. t992, ca nnot be entertained. Therefore, the application is rejected."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by a learned sin11.le judge of this court in W.P.No.7729 of 2016 wherein, this Court by following the law laid down by the Hontrle Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra pradesh and others v. P.Laxmi Devil held that any document, which is insufficiently stamped once produced before the District Registrar. he has no authority to reopen the document without impounding the said document. By holding as such, this Court allowed the said writ petition. The order passed by this Court in the said \ rit petition reads as under: "Petitioner has questioned a Memo No.Al /971;l2016 dt.08.02.2016 issued by 3rd respondent to impound unrelistered original sale deed, dt. 05.06,f970, presented by the petitioner for the said purpose for collection of deficit starnp duty and penalty under Section 38 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends tllat the basis for the impugned memo issued by 3.d respondent is that executants of the document are not alive and that the litig rtion is pending in respect of the subject property. He placed reli:Lnce on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goveratnent of rlndhra '(2008) 4 scc 720 3 Pradesh and others v. P.Larmi Devi, wherein it was held that the Sub Registrar, being holder of public office, cannot return a document which is insufficiently stamped once he finds that it is not properly stanped and he must impound it. kamed Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents is not able to point out any provision in the said Act enabling the 3.d respondent to refuse to impound insumciently stanped documents produced by a party. Having regard to the law declared by thc Supreme Court in the above decision, I am of the opinion that it is the statutory duty of 3.d respondent to impound documents which are insufficiently stamped arld produced before him by a party, after collecting a deficit stamp duty and penalty under the provisions of the said Act, and he cannot refuse to do so by giving frrvolous reasons like litigation is pending or that executants are not alive. The Writ Petition is allowed, the memo, dated 08.02.20 l6 is set aside and 3.d respondent is directcd to impound the sajd document dt.05.06.1970 produced by the pctitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and collect dehcit stamp duty and penalry thereon under the provisions of the Act. The 3d respondent shall also pay costs of RS.2,OOO/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the petitioner "

4. In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of this Court in W.P.No-7729 of 2016, this Court is of the considered view that the 3.d respondent while considering the validation/impounding of a document has no right or authority to look into the title of the parties to the document over the subject property or otherwise. Mere validation or impounding of a document without collecting