Disposed

M/s Gayathri Developers and Builders, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jul 2023WP/15861/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court directed the District Registrar to accept deficit stamp duty for a 2009 Supplementary Development Agreement and certify its payment, clarifying that this does not validate the document.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 3 directed to receive deficit stamp duty and make necessary certification, but not validate the agreement.

M/s Gayathri Developers and Builders, Vs The State… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^320e ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 15861 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s Gayathri Developers and Builders, A partnership firm constituted under the lndian partnership Act.1932 Carrying its Business at H.No..1 -6-414, thaitanyapuri,^{Dilsukhlagar,} !ydqrabad.^{Represented by its Managing} Partner, Sri G. Sridhar Rgddy, S{o Somi Reddy, Aged aboui 58 years, 6ccl Business, Rt/o Flat No.502, MCH No.C-20, Taphswai Apartnients, D.D. Colony, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyddrabad.

¶14

The Commissioner .^{and lnspectorGeneral of Registrationand Stamps,} Telangana State at Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not receiving and not validating the Supplementary Development Agreement dt.24-O1-2OO9, by collecting the deficit stamp duty as per S6ction 41 of the lndian Stamp Act '1899, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondent No.3 to validate the Supplementary Development Agreement d1.24-01-2009 by collecting the deficit stamp duty as per section 41 of lndian Stamp Act, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Sectron 151 cpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in :;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondert No.3 to valrdate the supplementary Development Agreement dt.24-O1-2OO9, by collectinq the deficit stamp duty as per Section 41 of the lndian Stamp A:t 1899 pending, during the pendency of the above writ pelition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VASANTHARAYUDU REp. FOR SRI METTU SHANKAR, ADVOCATE

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.DILEEP KUMAR,

¶22

AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

HONOURABLE DT. JUSTTCE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶26

WRIT PE TITION No.15861 of2O23 ORDER:

¶27

.^{Heard SriVasantharay,udu,learned} counsel, who argued on behalf of Sri Mettu Shankar, Iearned counsel on record for the petitioner, as well as Sri B. Dileep Kumar, learned Assistant Government pleader for Stamps and Registration, who is representing respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶28

This Writ petition is fiied seeking an order more particularly in the nature of writ of Mand.amus declaring the action of respondent No.3 i.e., District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, in not receiving and not validating the Supplementary Developmen t Agreement d,ated. 24.0 r .2009 by collecting the deficit stamp duby, as illegal, arbitrar5z and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequenfly, to direct respondent No.3 ro validate the Supplementary Development Agreement dated 24.01.2OO9 by colecting the deficit stamp duty.

¶29

Contending that the l)istrict Registrar i.e., respondent No.3 is not implementing the provisions of law properly, more

¶30

i
<br>I
I
I

¶31

t)t⁽ .\I .t lt lt \t) lj\6t ,,/ :t):l

¶32

particularly th,.: Indian Starnp Act, 1g99, learnr:cl counsel t.or the petitioner ijrates that r lre petitioner sorlght to pa/ deficit starnp duty for- rhe Supltl<:rnen tar1, Development Agreement dated 24.Ol.2OOg, but, lbr the reasons br:st knou,n, respondent No.3 is refusin.q to receive a,d valiclate the saicl document.

¶33

Lear:ned Assistant Ciovernment pleader for Stamps ald Registration seeks the Court to pass necessatl orders

¶34

An oblig:rtion is cast upon the Registering Authority to receive artd pro(less the document presented by collection of dehcit stamp dr_rty. When it is brought to the rlotice of the Registering Authority that ar-r-r. document is deficitly stanped and not duly stzunped, the Registering Authority should take steps for collecting such deficit stamp duty as provided under the provisions o1' the Indian Stamp Act, 1g99. Therefore, this Court is of the view that a direction in that regard has to be issued. However, paymenl of deficit stamp duty and collection of sam,: by the Registering Authority does not mean that the document is validatect.

¶35

)

¶36

Dr CSL. J fi'.P 1\o.1566 i of 2023

¶37

Thus, this Writ^petition is disposed of with the following direction:-

¶38

Respondent No.3-District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District is directed to receive the deficit stamp duty payable in respect of the Supplementar5z Development Agreement, dated 24.OI.2009, in case, the same is sought to be paid. On payment of such deficit starnp duty, necessary and required certification be made over the said document as provided under law. However, such endorsement can be made only in respect of collection of deficit stamp duty, but not in respect of validation of the

¶39

document. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

7 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶41

closed.

¶42

SDI K. AJI ASSISTANT REGI RAR

//TRUE COPYII

\ To,

SECTION FICER

The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶47

One CC to SRI METTU SHANKAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶49

Two CD Copies BSR GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED: 10t07t2023

ORDER

WP.No.15861 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,
WITHOUT COSTS
1,D n 'v)

¶55

WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

r6E STA1 F o A
1
Y
ca NB ba
1$ I\<br>t ^t
e
lc ESoll c

M/s Gayathri Developers and Builders, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Gayathri Developers and Builders, v. The State of Telangana

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. SalvaruLaxmi and another Vs Mrs. Salvaru Leela and 3 others

Porandla Anand , Anandam Vs The State of Telangana

Sanjay Dhanuka Vs State of Telangana and 4 others

Bhukya Lakpathi Vs State of Telangana and 4 others

Palla Bharat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Chilkuri Madhavi Vs State of Telangana