Allowed

Smt. Sunki Reddy Jyotsna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Oct 2023WP/26978/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court directed the District Registrar to receive deficit stamp duty payable towards a sale deed dated 30.10.2017 under Section 41 of the Indian Stamp Act. The court clarified that such collection and subsequent certification do not validate the document if it was originally deficient.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to Respondent No. 3 to receive deficit stamp duty and make necessary certification over the sale deed dated 30.10.2017, subject to payment.

Smt. Sunki Reddy Jyotsna Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^320e ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 26978 OF 2023

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Smt. Sunki Reddy Jyotsna, W/o Sri tv1. Balakrishna, Aged about 70 years, Occ Retd.Govt. Service, R/o H.No. 1 2-2-709195, Navodaya Colony, Gudimalkapur, Mehdipatnam, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Commissioner, and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana State at Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Arlicle 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 certification of the sale deed dated 13-10-2017, by collecting the deficit stamp duty as per Seclion 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 certification of the sale deed dated 13-10-2017 by collecting the deficit stamp duty as^per section 41 of lndian Stamp Act, in respect of the peace and parcel of Plot Nos.193 & 194, in Survey No.66/3, admeasuring 600 Sq.Yards., or 50'l .60 Sq.tvltrs., situated at Raidurg Panmaqta Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under l)ection 151 CPC praying that in th.l circun'stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma1 be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to certification of the sale deeJ dated 13-''0-20'17, by collecting the deficit slamp duty as per Section 41 of the lndian Sramlr Act 1899, in respect of the pear:e and parcel of Plot Nos.193 & 1'14, in Survey No.66/3, admeasuring 600 Sq.'(ards., or 501.60 Sq.tvltrs., situatec at Ri:idurg Panmaqta Village, Serilingampall/ Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Fleddy Distrirl, pending, during the pendency o' the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petiti<,ner: SRI METTU SHANKAR

¶19

Counsel for the Respt ndents: SRI B.DILEEP KUMAR,

¶20

AGP FOR STAMPS AND RT:GISiTRATION

¶21

The Court made the fc llowing: ORDER

¶22

¶23

IIONBLE DT. .]T]STICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶24

WRrr PDTITION No.26978 of 2023

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri Mettu Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, as r,l,ell as Sri B.Dileep Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, who is representing all the respondents.

¶27

This Writ Petition is liled sceking an order in the nature ol u.rit ol Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 i.e., District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, in not receiving the deficit stamp dut)' ir1 respect of the sale deed dated 3O.lO.2Ol7 and not certifying the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the said authority to issue certificate by collecting deficit stamp duty.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner, making his submission, states that as per Section 41 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, an obligation is cast upon the Registering a Authority to collect deficit stamp duty and therefore, direction may be issued to the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District i.e., respondent No.3 to receive the deficit stamp duty which is liable to be paid in respect of the sale deed dated 30.1O.2077.

¶29

¶30

l)r t \l .l Il ' ' 1/ 9-,\ t)l :t).11

¶31

Learned A.ssistant Govcrnrnent Pleader for Stareps aud Registration, v,ho is represcnting all the r( spond,ltts, seeks the Court to pirss necessarv orders.

¶32

An oblillation is cast upon the Registering /rlrt^.loritl/ to receive and process the document present('d by c.rllt:ction of deficit stamp 1uty. When it is brought to the nr;tice ol the Registering Au thority that an-r: document is dcfi<:it Iv stamped and not duly r,tamped, t.he [iegistering Autlroritl :;l.rould take steps for colle<:[ing such deficit stamp dutv as pro,,idr:d under the provisions of the Inclian Stamp Act. 18()9. Tet:relbre, this Court is of tht: view that a direction in that regarrl 1^as to be issued. Hou,r ver, pa_vment of delicit ritaml) duty and collection of siLnle by the Registering Authot'it1 dct.s rrot mean that the docurrent is validated

¶33

Thus, his Writ Petition is dispcsed ol rr,'ith the following dire< tion:-

¶34

Respondent No.3-District Registrar, Ran5;a Reddy District i:; directed to re ceive the defir:it stirtp duty payable I1) respect of the Sale deerl, rlatecl 30.10.20 7, in case, the same is soullht tc, be paid. On payment of such deficit stamp d.rt1', ;:ir:ce:;sary

¶35

¶36

t,.L.SL. J 11.P.No.26978 oJ 202 3

¶37

and required certification be made over the said document as provided under lar,t,. However, such endorsement can be made only in respect of collection of deficit stamp duty, but not in respect o[ validation of the document. There shall be no order

¶38

as to costs

¶39

Miscellaneous petjtions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD ASSTSTANT REGrS/RAR

//TRUE COPY//

^/ w SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶45

The Commissioner, and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana State at Hyderabad.

¶46

The Diskict 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

HlGH COUR

DATED: 10110t2023

ORDER

WP.No.26978 <>f 2023

::r-.-
4 F <br>/
llI1- 11 rtJ ?tB
.: /,
t

¶57

DISPOSING C F THE WRIT PETITION,

¶58

WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

@
n/I

¶60

Smt. Sunki Reddy Jyotsna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunki Reddy Jyotsna 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

G. Krishna Kumari Vs G. Ashok Babu

Sri. M. Ravinder Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dommeti Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Gubba Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Saanvi Developers Vs The State Of Telangana

Karnam Veena Vs The State of Telangana