Allowed

Shaik Jani Pasha, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Feb 2023WP/46703/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging notices demanding stamp duty under Article 6(8) for agreements concerning open agricultural land. Citing precedent, the court held such cases fall under Article 6(A). The notices were set aside, and the registrar was directed to impound documents applying the correct article.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices set aside; respondent directed to impound documents applying Article 6(A) instead of Article 6(8) within four weeks.

Shaik Jani Pasha, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAV OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

wRtT PET|T|ON NO.46703 0F 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shaik Jani Pasha, S/o.Shaik Hussain, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.6-2, Janpahad Road, Damaracherta Village ahd Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Regiskation) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hydt-;rabad.

¶12

The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Nalgonda District.

¶13

3 fSqmbi Reddy, S/o.Buchi Reddy,'Aged about 62 years, Occ: Agncutture. R/o.Mallaiahpalem Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent by issuing 1).Notice No.lmp/2406/2022, dated.01-11-2022, 2)Notice No.tmpt2406t2022, daled.01 -1 1 -2022, 3)Notice No.lmpl2406l2022, dated.01 -1 1 -2022. 4)Notice No.lmp/2406/2022, dated 01-11-2022 and 5) Notice No.lmp/2406/2022, daled 01-11-2022 demandrng the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.80O0t with penalty of RS.4AOOO/- per each receipt, stamp duty is chargeabte on consideration under Artlcle 6 (B) of Schedute-t(A) to tndian Stamp Act, 1A99, by

I I I

-t7

not considering^p 3titioner explanation dt.16-11-2022 rn reply to the^notices dt.O1-11-2022, is llegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and cortrary to^{the lndian} Stamp Act, and co lsequently direct the 2nd respondent to^impoundi revalidate^the 1). Un registered i rgreement of sale, dated 24-04-2011 in re;pect of the landⁱⁿ Sy.No.430 to an e dent of Ac.5.00^guntas, 2). Un-registered Agreement of^sale, dated 24-04-201 1 in respect of the land in Sy.No.430 to arl extent of Ac.5.00 guntas, 3). Un-reg stered Agreement of sale, dated 24-04-20' 1, in respect of the land in Sy.No.430 o an extent of Ac.5.00^guntas, 4). Un-regit.tered Agreement of sale, dated 24-04-',011 in respect of the land in Sy.No.430 to rn extent of Ac.5.00 guntas, and 5) Un.registered Agreement of sale, dated 24-04-2.011, in respect of the land in Sy.No^z 30 to an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas, all the llnds are situated at Vazeerabad Villag ), Damaracherla Mandal, Nalgonda District presented by the petitioner, by settir g aside the 1) Notice No. lmp/2406/2o22 daled 01-11-2022, 2). Notice No lmp 2406/2022, daled.01-11-2022, 3. Notice No.lmp/240612022, dated 0'l-1 1-2022, 4) Notice No.lmp/240612022, dated 0'1-1 1-2022 and 5). Notice No.lmpt24o6l2\22 dated 01-1 1-2022 issued by the 2 "r respondent, by considering the pe1 tioner explanation d1.16-11-2022, in the intorest of justice.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition und,:r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ,lmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2"d respondent to impound/revalidate the 1). Un registereo Agreement of sale,

¶22

daled 24-04-201 1 in respect of the land in Sy.No.430 to arr extent of Ac.5.00 guntas, 2). Un-reg stered Agreement of sale, dated 24-04-2011 in respect of the land in Sy No.430 o an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas, 3). Un-regis tered Agreement of sale, dated 24-O4-t011. in respect of the land in Sy.No.430 to rn extent of Ac.5.00

¶23

guntas, 4). Un-registered Agreement of sale. dated 24-04-2011. in respect of the land in Sy.No.43O to an extent of Ac.5.OO guntas and 5). Un-registerej Agreement of sale, dated 24-04-2011, in respect of the land in Sy.No.430 to an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas, all the lands are situated at Vazeerabad Village, Damaracherla Mandal, Nalgonda District, presented by the petitioner, by considering petitioner explanation d1.16-11-2022 in reply to the 1). Notice No.tmp/240612022, dated 01-11-2022, 2). Notice No.lmp/2406/2022, dated 01-11-2022, 3). Notice No. lmpl2406l2022, dated 01-11-2022, 4]|. Notice No.tmpt2406t2o22, dated 01-11-2022 and 5). Notice No.lmp/2406/2022, dated 01-11-2022 issued by the 2"d respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest ofjustice.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.^'l & 2:

¶26

GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR trrRIT PETITION No.467O3 OF 2O2;!

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition is filed assailing the notice issued by respondent No.2 requiring the petitioner to p€v their Stamp duty charg:able in respect of the Agreements ot' Srrle, dated 24.O4.2011 in notice No.lmp/2406 12022, datrd U.t1.2022, wherein th,: petitioner was required to pav Starnp duty under Article 68 'rf Schedule 1(A) oi the Indian Stamp ,\ct, 1899, as illegal and r rbitrary.

¶35

I t is t he case of the petitioner that tht: said Agreements of Sale with possession, dated 24.O4.2O11, :1irwarded to respondent No.2 for the purpose of impotrndin 1 by collecting delicit StanLp duty in respect of the open land,; admeasuring various ext lnts and respondent No.2, having r;:nsidered the said docun rents, issued the impugned notice requiring the petitioner 10 pay deficit Stamp duty under trrricie 6(E}) of Schedule 1() of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶36

Accor ling to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the agreements of sale in question are covering only cpen lands and as such tht petitioner is liable to pa1, Stamp drr,-;, only under Article 6(A) rf Schedule 1(A) of th '.rdian Stamp tr:t, 1g99, but

¶37

::2::

¶38

MSK.J Wp 46703 2022

¶39

not under Article 6(8) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as demanded by respondent No.2.

¶40

This matter was adjourned from time to time to enable the learned Assistant Government pleader for Stamps and Registration to get instructions and today learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration placed before this Court the written instructions, which are in tune with the contents of the demand made in the impugned notices.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that this Court, on an earlier occasion, considered the similar aspect in respect of the propert5z, which is open land and this Court held that in respect of open lands, it is only under Article 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, applies bur nor Article 6(8) of Schedule I (A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶42

In the case of Saranam peda Appaiah v. S.Narasimha Reddyt, a division Bench of this Court has considered the similar issue and held as under:-

¶43

"Article 6(8) is very clear in its expression that in case of anv transactions relating to construction of a house etc. as mentionei in descriptive column of the instrument, the stamp duty required is Rs. 5/- for every hundred or part thereof, of thi market value or the estimated cost of proposed construction or development of such property as the case may be. Therefore, the quesiion that calls for consideration is whether the said Articli covers the

¶44

'zoo+ 101 arr z: 1o.s.1

¶45

¶46

¶47

lV{S K,J ',\ p 4670i 2022

¶48

agricult ,rral land also. It is a cardinal princi:tle of the interpft tation that the provision interpreted w ith ref(:l-(:nce to the uords t ontarned in the provisions and by intcrpretati,,e piocess, it is nei .her to be expanded nor constricted. When th: l€gislature has spe :ifically referred to the document relating to ccrnstruction of hous e, apartment, flat, portion of muiti-storied bLrilding etc and th ) stamp duty is payable on the market r rLlue cr the estimat :d cost of the said property, lt has to be conined only to

¶49

houses, mulli unit houses or apartment etc. Even th(: valuation \ as sor ght to be arrived at on the basis ofthe latr s, presrcribed by the l lrblic Works Department authorities. Further ir is rroticed that tl e transactions left over by Article 6(8) ar,: covered by Artic te 6(C). Therefore, it cannot also be said thrrL there was vacuur in Ure Article. In the instant case, the agree:r,:nt is after t-4 lgc_ 5, but it relates to the agricultural land. Tal:ing the clue from tL e last expression in the document namely "sale cf any other i nmovable property" it was contended thrt it would embrac : in its fold other immovable property ir r:ludirrg the agricult rral property and therefore, the stanrp duty has to be paid or that basis. But, that contention cannot ): ac(:epted, inasmu rh as the expression the sale of an., othe immovable propert ' has to be interpreted keeping in view the pr-inci.:les of ejusden . geneis namely where general words Jaliow an cnumer rtion of persons or things, by words \if a p.t1cular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be, tlnstrued in therr wi lest extent, but are to be held as applying on J ,o plrsons or thin ls^{of the same general} kind or classes as specifically mentior ed. Otherwise, the other provisions be<.ome o .ic,se." 7. Furti.er, in the case of Pechitti Ramakrishna v. Nekkanti Venltata Manohara Rao and others2, a.learned Single Judl;e of this Court has considered the applicar.ion under Article 6(8) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, but not under i rrticle 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, whic r it reads as under:-

¶50

"A car :fu[ reading of Article 6(8) of Schedule 1-A of the Aot goes to sho' r that it is appticable if the agreemenl :ela:es to constru )tion of a house or building including a multi-,,rnit house or builc ing er unit of apartment/flat/portion of a I rLlr lti- r;toried buildinl or for development/ sale of any other immovable propert' . A further reading of the stamp duty payablr srpecified in column No.2 also makes it clear that this prcvision was

¶51

'zoo+ 101^{arr +, z} 1s.ey

¶52

::4::

¶53

MSK..r Wp 46103 2022

¶54

introduced in relation to the construction agreements or agreements of the like nature. No doubt, emphasG was laid on the lan-guage "sale of any other immovable p.op..iyi. ft """ ,"o.a" "sale of any other immovable property,, in Artiile A(et oi S"f,"arl" 1 -A of the Act may have to be ieaj along *itt it ! .""i "f tt " sgeci_f1e$ provision and also in Article 6(C) with column of Schedule No. 1_A 2. AsJar of the act "" is concernea, ".ry ott". "^".it should be construed to be a case not falling under either A or B of Schedule 1-A of the Act. Ir is needles to *V tfr"i e.i-i.f. Otnt of Schedule 1-A of the Act is a general provisionl tt l" "o aorUt t.r" tnat ln the present case, the sale consideration recited in the agreement of sale is Rs. 42,5O0/_ and it is in relation to the sale of a vacant site. On a careful reading of the language empfoy.a in Article 6(,4, B & C) of Schedule 1_-A of the a8i ia-J"o tn" stamp. duty payable specified in column No. 2 and taking into consideration the object of introducing B by A.p. ,q.ct Zi oi-fSSS, f am of the considered opinion that Articte O1n1 of Scneaute t_a of the Act would be applicable only in such specified cases-ana tne same cannot override the general provision of Article 6(,{) of Schedule 1 A of thc Act and agreement in question woutd definitely fall under the gencral provision of Aiticle O1a;1rir) of Schedule 1-A of the Act and hence, the stamp auty a1..Jay paiA is sufficient. It is also clarified rhat in rhe lighr oitf,. ,,.ir.. of the .^{document Article6{8) of Schedule1_A of the} e"t-i" .rot applicable to the present case. Hence, the impugned order holding that.the stamp duty and penalty retating to'tn3-aocument rn quesrron rs llable to be paid under Article 6(8) of Schedule 1_A ol the Act cannol be sustained."

¶55

¶56

In the light of the above settled legal position and taking into consideration the fact that there is no dispute that the subject matter of the Agreements of sale in question is only open lands and no constructions are existing thereon, it is only Article 6(,{) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, applies but not Article 6(8) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as claimed by respondent No.2, the impugned notices are set aside.

¶57

Accordingly the Writ^petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directgd to impouny'-the subject documents by applying

¶58

;5::

¶59

MSK,J $ p_16703 _2022

¶60

¶61

¶62

Article 6(4 of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stz mp Act, 1899, instead of \rticle 6(8) of Schedule 1(A) ol the [nc[an Stamp Act, 1899, and :omplete the process of impounding, rts expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four (04) s,eeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶63

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, perL,iing if any in this Writ Pr tition, shall stand closed. There shal; be no order as to costs.

¶64

,TRUE COPY//

¶65

SD/.P,PA iIMANABHA REDDY ASSIST}NT REGISTRAR

¶66

sei frdu oFFrcER

¶67

To,

¶68

One fair copy t( the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENt rjL.tDHEER KUMAR (For His Lordship's Kind Perusat)