I the decision rendered by this Court in Saranam Peda Appaiah v. S.Narasimha Reddyt, whereinit was observed as followd

IN THE TITGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TET ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE TION,BI,E SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAO NI.NDIKONDA CIVIL REVTSION PETITION No.1703 o I_2021 22"d DECEMBE& 2025 Between: S.Jagadeeshwar Reddy M.Rufas ...Ptl tioner/Plaintiff ...Respo n denUDefendant ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is hled aggrieved t,' the order dated

18.10.2021 in l.A.No.56ll202l in O.S,No.108/201i passed by the leamed III Additional District Judge, Rangareddy Distri :t at L.B.Nagar.

2. The brief lacts of the case are that the revision u :titioner/plaintiff herein is the ptaintiFf before the trial Court, who filed suit against the defendant seeking the following relief: (i) rlirect the defendant to execule registered sale deed 't respect of xtit pntperty i.e., Sy.No.2l3/E and 214/E total t,'measuing Ac.2.00 guntus sitltqted in the limits of Chowdargt'u Village' Shamshabad Mundal, Rungareddy District by receit'i g balance sob consideralion. 2 \ ttaR , ca!,l ro3_2021 t a (ii) alternatively direct defendant to refutd Rs.2,I4,000/- (odvance amount + interest) with future ihterest @ 24ol per annum from the date of suit till realization- (iii) Costs of suit. (i") Pass snch olher order or orders as the Court deems fit in the interesl ofiustice.

3. Pending the suit, during the course of evidence, the leamed Judge of the trial Court impounded the subject document, collected the requisite stamp duty along with penalty, and marked the same as Ex.Al, treating it as an agreement of sale.

4. Being aggrieved by the marking of the said documenr, the defendant filed an application und€r Order XIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in t.A. No.561 of 2021 in O.S. No.l08 of 2015, praying the trial Court to reject the document marked as Ex.Al and to de-exhibit the same on the ground that the plaintiff had the agreement of sale impounded by invoking Article 6-,4' of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act instead of Article 6-8, and that the document, having been insulficiently stamped, is liable to be impounded.

5. On the other hand, the plaintiff filed a counter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the ag{eement of sale 3 lria,, cRP_l?o3_2cll marked as Ex.Al was properly stamped and impound: I in accordance with Articles 6-4 and 6-C of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, that Article 6-8 has no application to the said document, ind accordingly prayed the trial Court for dismissal of the petition.

6. Upon hearing both sides, the trial Court opine(l lhat the subject document falls under Articte 6-8 of Schedule I-A of I e Indian Stamp Act and accordingly allowed the petition, grantin ; liberty to the respondent/plaintiff to make good the deficit stamp dut ' and penalty as per Article 6-8 within fourteen days from the date c I the impugned order, failing which the agreement of sale marked as Er., A'1 was directed to be de-marked.

7. Assailing the impugned order, the present Revis r n is filed by the plaintiff contending that the order passed by the trial Sourt is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Indiar Stamp Act and settled principles of law, inasmuch as the learned tri I Judge, having once exercised jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Indi' n Stamp Act by impounding the document, collecting the requisite tamp duty and penalty, and marking the same as Ex.Al, became functu t oficio and had \ \ \ 4 \ trxRr, ctP l7tt3Jo2r no jurisdiction to subsequently revisit the nature of the document or direct payment of additional stamp duty under a different' Article.

8. It is further contended that the agreement of sale in question does not aftract Article 6-8 of Schedule I-A, as it is an agreement of sale simpliciter relating to agricultural and open land, without delivery of possession either expressly or impliedly, and therefore is properly chargeable under Article 6-,4.. Once the document was admitted in evidence, its admissibility could not have been questioned at a later stage in view of the statutory bar under Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, and consequently, the application filed by the defendant under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC was not maintainable and could not be used to indirectly override the said bar. The finding of the trial Court that Ex.Al falls under Article 6-8 is perverse and unsustainable, and the direction granting liberty to pay further stamp duty and penalty, failing which the document would be de-exhibited, amounts to exercising a power not vested in law

9. lt is lurther contended that the Court below fuither ened in placing reliance on a decision of a leamed Single Judge of this Court reported in 2020 (6) ALD 491 while ignoring the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench cf this Court reported in 2004 (l) ALD 557 ]] 5 LlrR J cRP t70a_*2\ and2OO4 (5) ALD 653, which authoritatively held tha the expression "sale of any other immovable property'' in Article 6-ti m;st be read in conj unction with the rest of the provision and c<es not include agreements relating to agricultural lands, and it is a scr 1ed prineiple of judicial discipline that a Single Judge decision cannot 'verride binding Division Bench precedents; therefore, the impugned otc:r is liable to be set aside and the application under Order XIll Rule 3 IPC deserves to be dismissed, confirming the marking of Ex.Al as valirl in law'

10. Heard Mr.Y.Rishikesh Reddy, learned cou r rel representing MrJvl.Saroj Reddy, leamed counsel for the re z sion petitioner. Notice sent to the sole respondent was retumed vith the postal endorsement 'unclaimed'; hence, it is treated as deemec service in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Perused the r :cord.

11. Now the only point that arises for considerati't t is whether the document which is exhibited under Ex.Al falls within he Article 6A of Schedule I or 68?

12. The leamed counsel for the revision petitioner/pl; intiff has argued that in case of immovable property Article 6,4' of Sclr, dule-l-A applies but not Article 68 and in support of the said contentr( n he relied upon l , , i ! 6 TIiJ cri-I7t 3_toi!I the decision rendered by this Court in Saranam Peda Appaiah vs S.Narasimha Reddyt, whereinit was observed as followd: \.i t

11. The Suprene Court in M/s VIKRANT TYRES L'tD. /s. THE FIRST INCOME 'lAX OFFICER. MYSORE, . observed thus: "It is o settled pinciple in law thal lhe Courts while construing Revenue Acls have lo give o lair and reasonabk construclion to the bnguage of a Statute without leaning to one side or the other, meaning thereby lhat no tax or levy can be imposed on a subject by on Act of Parliament without lhe words of the Stutute clearly showing an inlention to lay the burden on the subject- In lhis process, lhe Courts must adhere to the word's of lhe Statute and the so-cttlled equitsble conslnrclion of those wtrds of the Stalute is not permissible. Thc lask of the Courl is to conslrue the provisions of the taxing enaclments occording t<t the ordinary and natural meaning of the language used and lhen to apply thdt meoning Io the.[acts of the case and in that process if the tuxpayer is brought within lhe net he is caught, olhetwise he has to gt free. This pinciple in luw is setrletl by this Court in Indiu Curbon Ltd. v. State of A.ssun , wherein this Court held. "Interesl can be levizd and charged on dcluyed payment ol tat only if the statute that levies und charges the lax nrukes d substqntive Provisrcn in this behalf," A Constittttion Bench of this Court speuking through one of us (Hon. tharucha, J.) in the Casa t,/ l/ l'Sl .lir-qair t'. Govcntnettl of A.P- reiterated lhe proposition luitl tk*;n rn the Indiu Carbon Ll(I.'s case (supra) in the fotlowing woruls: "fhc .4Lt in question is a taxing suttule and, therefure, must be inlerprcted as it reuds, with n<t adtlitions qnd no sub,ractions, on the grcund o/ legislutivc mlcndment or otherwise."

14. Tlrc Supreme Court n GLIRSIIAI StllG,lL r:. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. PUNJAB. . st<tted thus: "IT is wall recognised thul lhe rulc of consltaction lhut d a case is not covered within lhe.finr corners <tf the provisitttrs of laxing stulute, no tax can be impnsetl by inlercnce or by analogt or by trying lo profu into the intentions of the lagislorure and by considering u'hat vas the subsbnce of the nwtler applics onl-y to a tLting Provision and h1s no application to all proyisions in a la.xittg sl.tlulc. It does not apply to u provision nol crealing a chttrge for the tux but luying dov,n the machinery for its catcuhtion or procedure lor its c<tllcction. The provisions in Q toxing statute dealing with machinery for asscssment hove lo be conslrued by the ordinary rules of c-t)nslruction, ther is lo say, in accordunce with the clear intenlion of lhe M ANU/AP/0607.'2U'.1 i I I I I Ir I t : i i I ( I 7 rXRJ cR? 1703 2021 legislaare, which is to make a charge levied efective-"

18. Even d the words used are ambiguous and reasonabl.y c rci to t*o interprelalions, benefit of interpretation should be given to thc it biect.

19. Articlc 6(8) is very clear in its erpression thol in 1';e of any transactions relaling to construction of a house etc. as tr nlioned in descriptive column of the instrument, the stamp duty required i Rs. 5/- fur every hundred or part thereof, of the market value or the estitn ,ted. cost of proposed construction or development of such property as the c 'se ntay be. Therefore, lhe question that calls for considerqtion is u.heth r the said Arlicle covers the agriaitural land also. It is a cardinal pnn iple of the inerpretalion thaf the provkion interpreted with referenct t the words contained in the provisions and b, intery)retative pracess, it ts / 'fther to be expanded nor constricted. When the Legislature has specifical\ refened to lhe doctmenl relating lo const action of house, apartment, -.ll,t, portion of multi-storied hilding etc and the stamp duty is payable on the n trkel value or the eslimated cost of the said property, it hus to be con'i ,ed only to houses, multi unit houses or aryrtnanl elc. Even the valualrct ,tas s<tught to be arrived at on lhe basis of the rates prescibed by the t,. blic llorks Department authoilies- Further it is noticed that the tqnsqcr t t.s lefl over by.4rticla 6(8) are covered by Article 6(C). Theref<tre, it cat ot also be said that there u,as voc-uum in the Article. In the instunt cuse, I I ugreement is alter 1.4.1995, but it relates to the agicultural land. Takin,q r, " c1rr. Trrn the last expressian in the document namely "sale of uny otfut immowtble properu" it was contended that it would embrace in ir, lbld othcr immovable property including the agricularal property und ,l, refora, the stamp duly has to be paid on that basis. But, that contentittt cunnol be accepted, in as much as the expression the sale of tmy othtt inmowtble property has fo be interpreted l<eeping in view the principlt,t ,[ eju:^dum generis namely where general words fallow an enumeration ,)1 persons (,r things, by words of a particltlar and specific meaning, such y: cral u'ords are not to be consiued in their wde$ extenr, but are to be h:l I ts applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or classes t.s ;peci-ficalllt mentioned- Otherwise, lhe other provisions becomc otiost. , n identicol issue came up @fore the ld. Brother P.S. Naruyana J i r oECHIT-tl RAMAKRISHNA Ys NEfrKANTI VENKATA MANOHAR4 RAO, and after refening to the amerdnents has observed os follows: "A careful reading ofArticle 6(8) of Schedule I-A ol rhc /l( t g t.s to thow, that it is applicoble d the agreement relotes to constn ction t\ u house or building including a multi-unit house or building c unit t{ apartmenl4lat/portion ofa multi-sloied building orf\r cleveloc ,tanl/sule of ony olher immovable property. A further reading of tlrc stamp ( q) pa.vable E TXRJ cit_trqt zGtl specirted in column No.2 also makcs it clear lhat lhis provision was introduced in reldtion to lhe construction agreements or dgreedtenls of the Iike nature. No doubt, emphasis was laid on the language "sale ofany other immovabk property". These words "sale of any olher immovable properly" in Arlicle 6(8) of Schctlule I-A of tha Act may have to be read along with the rest of the provision qnd also with column No.2- As for as ony other case speciJied tn Article 6(C) of Schulula I-A of thc Act is conterned, it should be construed to fu a case notfolling under either A or B of Schedulc I-A of the Au. It is needless to say that Article 6(A) of Schctlulc I-A of tlrc Act is a general provision. [t is no doubt lrue thal in lhe presenl case, lhe sale consideration reciled in the agreement of sale is R:. 42,500/- and it is in relation lo lhe sale of a vacunl sile. On a careful reading of the language employed in Article 6(A, I A C) of Schctlula [-A o.f thc Act and also the stamp duty payable specified in column No.2 and al<ing into consideration lhe object of introducing B by A.P. Act 2l <tf 1995, I am of the considered opinion lhat Arlicle 6(8) of Schcdulc l-.4 o.f thc Act would be applicable only in such specified coses and the sume cannol overide the general provision of Article 6(A) of ,Schalulc I-A o[ the ,4ct and dgreemenl in question would definilely ftll uruler the general pr<wision ofArticle 6(A)(iii) ofSchedula l-A of thc lcr arul hence, the stqmp duty alreudy paid is suficient. It is also claified that m the ligfu ofthe nature of he doLumanl Arlicle 6(8) of Schetlule I-A o/ thc Act is not applicable lo lhe present cqse. Hence, the impugned Order holding that thc stamp duty and penalty relating to the docttment in qucslion is liable to be paid under Article 6(8) of khedule l-A of thc.4ct canrutl be sustuined." Therefore, we are in ogrecme with the principle luul doutt in the aforesaid decision. The pruvision hos to be inlerpreled hurmoniotuly kceping in view the objects ttf the urncndmenl. Moreover, the present anendment is Jiscal in nature and it 1ru5 to be constnred slictly in accordance with law. In as much as thc agicultural lands ure not covered and it covered only specific items ol property, it connot have universal application of all transocrions covering rnmovuble properlies. Under those circumslances, the suit Agrecmcnt of Salc cannot be said to be covered by Article 6(8) of tlrc Sche<lul< l-A ol rtu Act dnd hcnce u,e urc of the considercd view lhut the Ordcr of thc lower C<turt is itt coruorrunce wilh the Article 6(8) of the Sranp Ao us amcndcd by A.P. Act 2I of 1995.

13. The Court below lailed to appreciat€ that Ex,A I p€rtains agdcultural and open [and and does not relate to any building, multi- storied structure, apartment, or development/sale of immovable property 9 cNP _r703.2(,21 as contemplated under Article 6-8, and therefore squz rely falls under Article 6-4,, under which the stamp duty paid is suffr ient. The Court further committed a grave error in relying upon a decjs on of a learned Single Judge reported in 2020 (6) ALD 491 , while corr oletely ignoring the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Division Bench r :ported in 2004 (t) ALD 557 and 2004 (5) ALD 653, which clealr held that the expression "sale of any other immovable property'' in , ,rticle 6-8 must be read in conjunction with the rest of the prcr ision, and that agreements relating to agricultural land do not fall witt n its ambit. [t is a settled principle of judicial discipline that a Single trdge's decision cannot override or dilute the binding precedents of z )ivision Bench, and by ignoring this settled position, the Court below ir, ted illegally and with material inegularity in allowing the petition anc lirecting the de- exhibition of Ex.Al.

14. tn view of the above decisions and conside ing the lactual aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the suit agreert :nt Ex.A I retates to agricultural land and not to any building or multj- iloried structure, and therefore squarely falls under Article 6-,{ of Scl-:dule [-A of the lndian Stamp Act, and not under Article 6-8. Tlrc impugned order passed by the trial Court does not withstand scrutiny rs the trial Court 1() t' \ \ ignored binding Division Bench decisions. Accordingly, the orders of the trial Court are hereby set aside.

15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. The Order dated 18.10.2021 in l.A.No.5611202l in o.S.No.l08/2015 passed by the leamed III Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar is hereby set-aside. The trial Court is directed to collect the stamp duty and penalty, if any, under Article 6-4 of Schedule t-A of the lndian Stamp Act, and thereafter proceed further by marking the document as an exhibit. Ifthe stamp duty and penalty are found to be sufficient, the document shall be treated as validly exhibited, and the trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. closed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, pending shall stand Sd/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional District Judge, R R.District at L.B Nagar 2. One CC to Mr. Y.RISHIKESH REDDY, Advocate representing Mr' M SAROJ REDDY, Advocate [OPUCI

3. Two CD Copbs tu, :ffitrtr'' HIGH COURT DATED: 2211212025 ORDER CRP.No.1703 of 2021 . THE ,S (\ (J t 1 ):. * l,'1 ),ili i ort-CHEo t Accordingly, this Civil Revision petitior is Disposed of. KS caf-fze I I t I ,l I I I