High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that ln the circumstances stated in the afiidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Endorsement No. 2779llMP t2025 daled 13.05.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent whereby rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 08.04.2 o25 for impounding of the unregistered agreement of sale dated 06j2j982 by collecting deficit stamp duty from the petitioner on the ground of circular instructions vide circular Memo No. G'tt1286Ol2OO8 Dt. 27.01.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the p-rovisions of lndian stamp Act 1899 and the reported Judgment ( 2OO8 ) 4 SCC 720 and same is liable to be set aside and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to impound the unregistered agreement of sale dated 06.12.1982 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. G111286012O08 dated 27 .01 .2009. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition ur d<rr Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumsr.ances stated in the affidavit filed ir s r., pport of the petition, the High Court may be 1:,leased to direct the 3rd respc,nderl: to rmpound the unregistered agreenlent of sale dated 06.12.1982 of petilicner by collecting requisite stamp duty and penitlty and release the same withou" -r: t:rence to the circular instructions of the 2'd espondent vide circular Memo lrlrr. ()1 I 1286012008 daled 27.01.2009 forthwith, pen Cing disposal of the main Writ Felit on Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTFi:ATION The Court made th,a following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PEf,ITIONNo.16886 of2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner' learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration aqpearrng for the resPondents. With their consent, this writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the 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.43737of2022,dated09'L2'2O22andrequestedto 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 of 2022, dated 09'12'2022 and requested to pass appropriate orders'

4. In view of the submissions made by the both sides and by following the Orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.437 37 of 2022, dated O9' 12'2022, this writ petition I 2 SK,J IV.I'.No. i.6886 of 2O2S \ is disposecl c,f by setting aside the impugne(l E.tdorsement \ No.2779:, lUvI? /2025, dated 13.05.2025 artd rhe respondent No.3-Dir;t:i.i Registrar is directed to impotrncl tht, agreement of sale da"r',1 06. 12.1982 produced by the pel.itiorLer within a period ol c,,'lr (4) weeks from the date of prresent:rtion of the same by tt,: petitioner by collecting delicit starnr duty and penalty tl'Lr'.-,:on under the provisions of the Inr:.ian Stamp Act, 189'1. I'lo order as to costs. q Iie:gistry is directed to annex copy ol, the order in W.P lt('.43737 of 2022, dated 09.12.2022 atong with this o rcle r' 6 \4iscellaneous petitions, if any, perrdirLg in this writ p':tiliort, sha,ll stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.SRINIVASA REDDY ASt:TANT REGISTRAR .....-.------._-_-..' SECI'ION OFFICER To

2. strati a, T.S on ) [)epartment, d, State of Telan g or General of Registration and lltamps, The PrinciP,al lsecretary Revenue ( Stamps and Secretariat !l't t Cings, Hyderaba rrer, and lnspect The Comtniss;tc Mozamzahi [Vl;r 1iet, Hyderabad, Tela ngana State The District Rerllistrar, Stam ps and Registrations Medchal lrlalkakgiri District at Medcha J. 4. One CC kr {i)tll f\4 DURGA PRASAD, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs io CiP I:OR STAMPS AND REqlSTRAf tOtrt,'Hrgn Co.rrt for the 6. Two CD C oPir:s State_oj l-r:lar1;rrra, at Hyderabad. [OUT] (4tqlg-y^ilf a copy of the order in Wp.No.43737 ot 2022 dated 09.12.20221 u- PSK. PSK #tG= i!, w -a W \ (b a HIGH COLIFI'T' DATED:19n612025 \ ORDER WP.No.16886i of 2025 a --- -' -- { tril: S i.1 16 ,< 2 fi JUll{ .,ttr ((\ t' a) ,J ) '1 ,+ * DISPOSING IOF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( 1 I L 7b t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KIIMAR WRIT PETITION NO .43737 ol 2022 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents' the Petitioner ald learnerl for StamPS and Registratlon

2. The grievalce 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 deficit stamp duty. But, the same was not entertained by respondent No'3 by passing an impugned order bearing letter No'8730/E1- lmp /2O2l,dated O1'02'2022'Tine said order reads as under: ..withreferencetotheapPlicationsubmittedforadjudicationof ]rnregrstered (dehcitty stamped) Sale Deed executed by Pingala Subba Rao on 16-06 1988' it is informed that the instrument is date of back of 34 years' the genuinenty of stamp paper could not be verihed with records as tlle period of preservation starnp vendor records, over and destroyed. The claim aPpears to be time barred without proof of title over the Property Further on veriftcation of indexes of the departmeilt Sri Pingal Subba Rao S/oP.V.RaghavaRaowasalreadysoldtheproperty(referredin unregistered Sa-Ie Deed) through Sale Deed registered as 1597 11992 dated No's.1566/1992 dated 23'06 l9g2' 25 06j'992' 162Lllgg2' dated 2906-1992' arld 167511992 dated O4 O7 1992 at S R'O Chikkapallv' I,t a0 2 Trrrcf(,re, in view of the above reasons the applicie ion tor ;L<1j:rrl cation of the unregistered Sale Deed dated 16.06 1gftg, \r'hci ,(as executed prior to the registered Sale l)eed,rr dat,td i l\.)t: )1.92, 25 06.1992, 29.06.1992 and 04.OT.Ig92, ca,'rnor i)e rnt,rl rred. 'llrer: tre. the application is rejected." 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notic€ ol tLr; Court the order passed by a learned single judge of this < o,rr I jn W. P. No.772 9 of 2076 wherein, this Cor Lrt by follow nq 1}.rr law laid down by the Honble Ape.K Ccurt n the case of (i:vernment of Andhra pradesh and othr:rs v, P.Laxm:i Eterrir held that any document, which is insuffir:iently stampec once produced before the District Registrar he las no author itr to :eopen the document without impounding thr: said docurr errt Eiy holding as such, this Court allowe,l thr: sairl writ petitiorl. Thr: order passed by this Court in the said u,rit pe,tition reads :rs u rl(l,lr: 'r)eritioner has questioned a Memo No.Gl /976t20lt dt 0t ( :l 20 t 6 issued by 3.d respondent to impound unreg:istere. or:gir:al sale deed, dt. 05_06.1970, presented by the petitior.er lo thc sajc c.rrpose for collection of dehcit stamp duty and penalh under le:'ion 38 (2) ofthe Indian Stamp Act, 1g99. ,carncd counsel for the petitioner contendrj that th( ba;is ftr the impugned memo issued by 3.d respondcnt is thal ex(.cl ',il]r s oI the document are not alive arrd that the litiBation is perrd 11l r 1 respect of the subject property. He placed leliance on thr jrrcllrr,:nt of the Supreme Court in Government of Arldhra ' lzoosy + ;c:: ,:,r