Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- VILAS V AFZULPURKAR
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Indian Stamp Act, 1899 s. 73
Judgment
Cause title
1 Sri Shakti Resorts and Hotels Ltd., Begumpet, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner and Inspector General Of Registration & Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction particularly a Writ in the nature of Certiorari Calling for the records relating to the order in Appeal No. SA2/3212/96 dated 16-4-1996 passed by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad, 2nd respondent Herein, and quash the same .....RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.V.L.N.SARMA The Court made the following :
O R D E R:
The writ petition is filed by the Assistant District Registrar, questioning the orders of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., dated 16.4.1996. The Collector and Authorised Officer, Indian Stamp Act, who is the Assistant District Registrar-the petitioner herein issued a notice dated 29.1.1996 to the first respondent herein under Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act alleging that the lease deed document No.1558/1990 and 75/1991 registered in favour of the first respondent herein did not contain the value of the document as the consideration was not truly set forth and thereby the stamp duty paid is deficient. The first respondent challenged the aforesaid notice by filing an appeal No.SA2/3212/96 before the second respondent, who is the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The said appeal was allowed on merits by the second respondent under the impugned order dated 16.4.1996 and questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned Government Pleader as well as learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. At the outset, it has to be noted that Section 73 of the Act, under which the notice referred to above was issued, was amended by A.P.Act 17 of 1986. The constitution and validity of the said provision was successfully challenged by several petitioners in a batch of writ petitions and the said provision was declared unconstitutional in DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD v CANARA BANK ETC., . The said decision [1] was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2005, SC 186. In view of the same, there is no necessity of going into any of the questions with respect to the merits of the case, and the notice issued in the present proceedings referred to above cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner impugned herein is confirmed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 3rd December, 2008 PNV ____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J [1] 1997(4) ALT 118
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.