Disposed

Gourishetti Chandrasekhar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC26 Dec 2013WP/24730/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition filed to challenge the Sub-Registrar's insistence on higher stamp duty under Article 49. The court found the document was treated as a gift deed under Article 29 and directed the petitioner to pay the deficit to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the petitioner to pay the deficit amount to have the document processed, registered, and a certified copy delivered. No costs.

Gourishetti Chandrasekhar Vs The Government of Andhra… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.24730 of 2013

¶2

Date: 26.12.2013

¶3

Between : Gourishetti Chandrasekhar

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Stamps & Registration Wing of Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

The Court made the following:

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.24730 OF 2013

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Petitioner avers that his father is absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing house No.2-5-6 situated at Nehru Park Road in Janagaon Town and Mandal in Warangal District. His father intended to transfer an extent of 2601.42 square yards along with tin sheds with an area of 5850 square feet in the above property in favour of the petitioner by way of gift. On 16.08.2013, gift deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Janagaon (3^rd respondent). Respondent No.3 refused to entertain the said deed as the heading of the deed is shown as gift settlement deed and would attract stamp duty as per the Article 49 of the Stamp Act, 1899. It is averred that petitioner explained that it is a gift deed by the father to the son. Though document is styled as gift settlement deed, the form of the document should be seen and therefore the 3^rd respondent erred in insisting the petitioner to pay 6% of the value of the property as stamp duty as per Article 49 of the Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Petitioner further avers that even though the Government issued clarification in Memo bearing No.S1/11217/2010 dated 26.07.2013, which clarification would apply to the case of the petitioner and, therefore, stamp duty payable by the petitioner is only under Article 29 of the Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act, the action of the 3^rd respondent in insisting higher stamp duty than what is payable by the petitioner is erroneous. Aggrieved thereby this writ petition is instituted.

¶11

2. Third respondent filed counter-affidavit. Third respondent denied the allegation of the petitioner that he insisted payment of stamp duty as per Article 49 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act. He avers that deed presented by the petitioner is treated as gift deed from father to son and would apply only Article 29 of the Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act. It is submitted in para-4 of the counter affidavit that as per the Stamp duty prescribed in Article 29 of the Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act, as per the valuation of the property, which is proposed for gift, petitioner

¶12

has to pay stamp duty worth Rs.14,23,600/-, whereas only Rs.4,00,200/- was paid and thus there is a deficit of stamp duty of Rs.10,23,400/-. Further more, petitioner has paid registration fee of Rs.1,000/- only, whereas he is liable to pay registration fee of Rs.1,42,360/- and thus there is a deficit of Rs.1,41,360/-. In addition, petitioner is liable to pay transfer duty of Rs.4,27,080/- under the Municipality Act, 1965. Since the petitioner paid far less stamp duty, registration fee and transfer duty than what is required, the document P.No.87 of 2013 is kept pending.

¶13

3. Thus, respondents categorically state that the document presented by the petitioner is treated as gift deed by father to son and provision under Article 29 of the Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act alone is applied. The facts as narrated in the counter-affidavit would disclose that document P.No.87 of 2013 is kept pending as the amounts payable by the petitioner by applying the provision in Article 29 of the Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act, 0.5% of registration fee and 1.5% transfer duty, which are required to be paid by the petitioner, are not paid. Thus, grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is misplaced. On payment of the said amount, if not already paid, the document should be processed by the 3^rd respondent, register the same and deliver the certified copy of the document registered to the petitioner.

¶14

4. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶15

Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶16

___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 26.12.2013 kkm

¶17

Oval: 

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶19

Writ Petition No.24730 of 2013

¶20

Date: 26-12-2013

¶21

kkm

Gourishetti Chandrasekhar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gourishetti Chandrasekhar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K.Narender, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Madiga Gangappa Vs The Government of Ap

J. Arvind Kumar, Vs The Cantonment Board

T.Varalakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its PrI.Secretary

Nagendla Glory Shekar. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.P. State Dental Council, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh