Allowed

Narsamma, v. The Collector and Executive Director

Telangana HC1 Apr 2008WP/20078/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the refusal to release a sale deed obtained in an auction by the Official Liquidator. Relying on Bengal Revenue regulations and precedents, the Court held that the value shown in the instrument is the market value. The writ was allowed, directing the respondents to release the deed.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to release the sale deed executed by the Official Liquidator in favour of the petitioner after registering the same.

Narsamma, Vs The Collector and Executive Director — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 20078 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nagubadi Subba Rao, s/o late Brahmaiah, r/o Kollavaripalem Village, Parchuru Revenue Mandal,Prakasam District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Secretary,

¶12

Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Parchuru, Prakasam District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 tissue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order of direction declaring the action of the second respondent in not releasing the Sale Deed dated 05.10.2004 executed by the Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P. in favour of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and issue consequential direction to the respondent to release the Sale Deed dated 05-10-2004 forthwith without insisting for further stamp duty to the petitioner .

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.KRISHNA MURTHY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

W. P.No.20078 of 2004

¶19

CYS, J

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner, who is the purchaser of a property in an auction held by the Official Liquidator, is about the respondents, not releasing the sale deed executed by the Official Liquidator in his favour, on the ground that the value of the property covered by sale is more than that is mentioned in the sale deed.

¶22

2. As per proviso to Section 47-A (6) of Indian Stamp Act,1899 in respect of instrument executed on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government or any authority or body incorporated by or under any law for the time being is force and wholly owned by Central/State Government, the market value of any property shall be the value shown in such instrument. Since the Official Liquidator would be acting under the provisions of the Companies Act and the sale conducted will have to be approved by the Court, the value stated in the instrument should be taken as market value of the property sold.

¶23

3. In fact in G.Usharani Vs. Joint Sub-Registrar-I, a learned Judge of this Court following the ratio M.Venkataramana Vs. Collector & District Registrar and Bharatia Pulverisers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sub Registrar of Assurances, held that the market value of the property sold in court auction should be taken as the highest bid amount mentioned in the document. So the respondents, not releasing the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by the Official Liquidator is unwarranted.

¶24

4. Hence, the Writ petition is allowed, rule nisi is made absolute and the respondents are directed to release the document executed by the Official Liquidator in favour of the petitioner after registering the same. No costs.

¶25

CYS, J

¶26

W. P.No.20078 of 2004

¶27

(C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J)

¶28

25.03.2005

¶29

BSS

¶30

The Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.