Degapudi.Sreenivasulu Reddy v. 1. The Commissioner and lnspector General of

6. Sri Ramagiri Venkatarama Murthy, S/o.Late Sri Ramagiri Rangaiah Rl/o. Plot No.103/106, Radhika Apts., Opp Shahib Nagar Reservoir, BN Reddy Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad.

7. Smt.Kothuru Venkata Subhashini, Wo.Anjaneyulu, R/o.Door No.5/650, Subhash Complex, Stone Housepet, Nellore-2, S.P.S.R., Nellore District. B. Smt.Chirra Subbarathnamma, Wo.Venkateswara Reddy Rlo.3-492-2, Nawabpet, Nellore, S.P.S.R., Nellore District. ..,RESPONDENTS 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 writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take action in accordance with law on the complaint daled 22.11.2008 given by the petitioner to the '1st respondent respectively l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 18983 OF 2009) 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 direct 1't and 2t\d Respondents to continue investigation into the complaint daied 22.11.2008 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S. SASIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS counsel for the Respendent Nos. 2&3: sRI Ia";[?li[^i#n Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Rqspondent Nos. 6to8:- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR W.P.No.14475 OF 2OO9 ORDER: Heard Sri S. Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 ald 3 ald learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. The present writ petition is liled seeking a direction against the respondents to take action on the complaint dated

22.11.2008 given by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 who is the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration for Stamps.

3. The facts enumerated from the record are that the petitioner entered into the agreement for purchase of larrd admeasuring BB.5 Ankanams situated at Pappulaveedhi main road uide agreement dated 0 1 .08. 1981 from respondent No.6 along with his brother and his mother and paid the total sale consideration as per the agreement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that two of 2 the vendr.rrs executed registered sale deeds for 2 f 3td of the subject property and when they postponed the execution of the sale deeds for the remaining extent of Iand on account of various reasons, the petitioner filed suit for specific performance before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore on 26.12.2008. However, the petitioner carne to know that respondent No.6 sold the remaining 1/3rd of the land to respondent Nos.7 and 8 uide registered sale deed No.2O14 of 2OO8 dated 08.05.2008. The petitioner upon obtaining a copy of the sale deed, found that respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 in collusion with respondent No.3 made incorrect recitals in the deed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a complaint before respondent No.7 on 22.1 1.2008. When respondent Nos. I and 2 did not take any action or initiate prosecution, the petitioner approached before this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking to direct to the respondent to take action in pursuant to the complaint lodged on 22.11.2008. 5. On the other hand, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 liled counter and put to strict prool of all the allegations stating that out of the total extent of lald agreed to be purchased by the \ t)-- - 3 petitioner, some extent was registered in favour of the petitioner and remaining site was not regi$ered and as per Section 27 of the Stamp Act, if any, the market value of the property and a-ll other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of aly instrument with the duty or amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, shall be fully and truly set forth therein by the executing parties of the documents. It is further contended that as per Circular No.38 dated 22.01.1999 of the Commissioner and Inspector General under CARD system after introduction of computerization in the process of registration of documents, it is the responsibility of the Registering officer for the omissions and commissions relating to the following aspects (a) Classification of the documents (b) validation of the data on the registration check slip (c) correct application of the market value guidelines through the CARD

6. The District Registrar, Nellore has conducted enquiry into the allegation made by the pqfitioner and submitted a report to the Commissioner and Inspector General that as per the situation of the property which is lying 1n Pappulaveedhi valuing Rs. 14,300/- per Sq.yard and determining the deficit _l 4 stamp and fees, thereafter initiating action for recovery of the Stamp duty under Section 41A of the Indian Stamp Act.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 further contended that while the case is under process for collection of stamp duty the petitioner has made baseless allegation that respondent No.3 colluded with the registering public t1t registering the document No.2014 of 2OO8 which is not correct. Whereas, upon verihcation of the link documents arrd market value as per the CARD process, there is no variation, therefore the Sub Registrar acted upon as per the Registration rules and Card Circular No.38 dated 22.01.L999 submitting that there is no deficiency on any account on the p:rrt of the registration of the document and for the deficit detected, which was detected due to suppression of situation of the property made by the executing parties

8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 further contended that under Section 41A of Indian Stamp Act, notices were issued for collection of stamp duty. It was further contended that there is a delay on the part of the petitioner in getting registralion of the property contracted to be purc'l" 1s,sd &t l 7 5 in the year 1981 and after lapse of 27 years, frling a suit for specific performance in the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court are a-11 the complications cropped between the seller and the purchaser which ate not in the notice of the Registering oflicer arld in no way connected with the process of registration of a document presented by way of any party claims.

9. Perused the record.

10. The grievance ol the petitioner addressing the complaint lodged by him has already been substantially ansr.r,ered. However, if the petitioner aggrieved by the factual aspects under the dispute, he is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for redressa,l of his grievance.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if aly, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. SD/- T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// Pradesh, HYderabad.

1. The Commissioner and lnspector General of, Regn. and Stamps, Andhra z. ii-,iioiiiiili'i"gitt,rt, District Court Qgnr.oound' S'P S'R' Nellore District. 5. fn" suu-n"gis[rar, Stone'Housepet, Nellbre, S PrS:R Nellore District' ; iii; s;;ti;[enJ"nt ot poti"e, Ndllore, S P S R N^ellore District i iijE "si5il""'ii;;; omJJi-stti" nb'i"pet P's Nellore' S P S R Nellore 6 o;; c-c to sRl. S..SASIDHAR REDDY Advocate toPUCl District. I I I To, z

7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana. 8. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, High Court for the 9. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Hyderabad [OUT] 10.One CC to SRl. T 11,Two CD Copies BM PSK C. KRISHNAN, Advocate [OPUC] l HIGH COURT \ DATED:23togt2ozs THE S rA ( .:) () -f * ( I ,/ 0 2 trF 2ll ,] ( t ORDER WP.No.14475 ot 2009 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ fDPru A pl :30 L6 I