Remanded

Dr.P.S.Prasad v. The Joint Sub Registrar-I, Moosapet,R.R.district

Telangana HC21 Aug 2024WP/21285/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana set aside a demand notice for alleged deficit stamp duty on a registered sale deed. The matter was remanded to the District Registrar to reconsider the issue after issuing notice and hearing. The petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 24.09.2009 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Joint Sub Registrar to place it before the District Registrar for fresh consideration after hearing.

Dr.P.S.Prasad Vs The Joint Sub Registrar-I… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁵⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDE} RA BAO (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY. THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21285 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dr.P.S. Prasad, S/o. P.S. Rao R/o 6/1 0,Shantiniketan New^Delhi

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Joint Sub Registrar-1, Mcosapet, R.R.district,^{Kothagudem, Khammam} District.

¶12

The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registrar,^{and Stamps, AP} Golkonda X Roads. Hyderabad

¶13

The Government of AP., rep.by^its Secretary,^{Revenue, Stamps and} Registration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶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 natui'e^{of writ} of mandamus declaring that the^actionof the^{1st respondent containedin the} impugned letter/demand in Reference^{No.RO(OB) 138 dated 24.9.2009 calling} upon the petitioner to^pay alleged deficit stamp^{duty on the Registered sale deed} dated 25 7.2008 bearing Document No.6268/2008^{as arbitrary,and irrational and} ultra vires the provisions of the lndian Stamp^{Act,1899 and invalidate the same} and consequently direct the^{respondentsnot to take any coercive action against} the petitioner^pursuant to the above^{said letter./demand.}

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 27557 OF 2009)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings is pursuant to the impugned letter/demand of the 1st respondent in Letter No.Ref.No.RO(OB) 138 dated 24.9.2009.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : G.JHANSI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.21285 of 2OO9

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶24

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.l in issuing the impugned letter/demand in Ref.No.RO(OB) 138 dated 24.O9.2009 calling upon the petitioner to pay the alleged deficit stamp duty on the registered sale deed dated 25.07.2008 bearing Doc.No.6268/2OOB as arbitrar5r ald irrational and invalidate the same and consequently direct respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the above said letter/demand.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that petitioner has purchased land admeasuring Ac.5-04 gts., in Sy.No. 172, Hydernagar Village, Balapur Manda,l, Ranga Reddy District, uide registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.6268 l2OO8. The sale deed was registered after due collection of stamp duty and registration charges. Thereafter, original sale deed was released. While so, uide impugned letter dated 24.09.2009, respondent No.1 called

¶26

)

¶27

upon the petitioner to pay the deficit starnl) duty of Rs.3,98,75,550/- in connection with the very sarne clocument of the said sale deed on the ground that the recitals ol the said sale deed would disclose that the said vendors have joined to give their consent accepting the internal divisions by metes and bounds and therefore, the sale deed has to be construed as combination of two documents accordingly, the demand for deposit ol stamp duty has been raised. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶28

Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the impugned letter, it is stated that all the co-owners have^joined the sale deed to give their consent accepting the internal divisions by metes and bounds, as such the same could be legally e:nforced and given effect to in future proceedings. It is further submitted that as per Section 2(15) of the Registration Act, 1908, memorandum of part partition is also to be treated as a partition ernd has to be accordingly charged. Therefore, the subject document has to be charged under two distinct matters i.e., (i) Partition among the co-owners for a-rl extent of Ac.98- 10 gts., and (ii) Sale of Ac.5-04 gts and refers to a letter issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar issued letter to the petitioner stating that the a uditors have

¶29

-7

¶30

pointed out the ma-rket value of the property after exempting the higher value is Rs.132,91,85,0OO/- (i.e., Ac.42-LO gts., multiplied by Rs.6,500/- per sq.yds.,) and the stamp duty leviable at 3%o on the market va]ue.

¶31

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while referring to the sale deed dated 24.07.2008 would point out to the schedule of property in which it is stated that land to an extent of Ac.5-04 gts., is the dry agricultural land from out of total extent of Ac.98-10 gts., forming part and parcel of Sy.no.172, Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and submits that the sale deed has to be construed as a single document.

¶32

This Court on 06.09.2009 has granted an order of interim stay, which reads as under:

¶33

"Prima facie, it appears tLuat no notice of ang kind uas issued to the petitioners before issuing the impugned letter by respondent No.7 .

¶34

Hence, there shall be inteim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned letter dated 24.09.2009. Hou.teuer, the respondents are at tiberty to issue notice to all the concerned and decide the matter as per lau.t. "

¶35

The Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District has filed a coun ter alfidavit and would submit that Doc.No.626B of 2008 styled as sale deed is actually a partition

¶36

¶37

<br>

¶38

deed to an extent of Ac.98-10 gts., at Sy.No. 172 ancl considering the said aspects, the audit authorities have raised objection with regard to payment of stamp duty and in pursuance to the same, a demand notice has been issued to the petitioner on 24.Og.2OOg in accordance to Section a 1 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1g99. Thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioner to submit explanation to the demand notice on 20.OS.2OLO and 02.06.2011, however, the petitioner without submitting an explanation to the demand notice, has hled a reply affidavit stating that there is a stay in the writ petition by this Court and the matter is now sub-judice before this Court.

¶39

karned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities ought to have ignored the audit objection with respect to the stamp duty as the auclit parties do not Dossess any expertise in the matter of levying the stamp duty. The sale deed dated 25.07.2O0g is purely a simple one and the question of going into the recitals for the purpose of levying stamp duty is impermissible in law. Moreover, the original sale deed has been released after payment of requisite stamp duty as directed by the respondents.

¶40

¶41

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that since the issue pertains to quantum of the stamp duty. As such the District Registrar is the competent authority to decide on the stamp duty paid by the petitioner on the subject document, and pray this Court to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

¶42

In view of the above observations made, impugned notice dated 24.09.2009 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No. 1 i.e., Joint Sub Registrar - I, Ranga Reddy District, who shall place the same belore the District Registrar for fresh consideration. The District Registrar after issuing notice to the petitioner and after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (B) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶43

I 1. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs

¶44

SD/- K. AMMAJI ASSTSTAN\Rq::.]::: //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶45

¶46

To, 1 The Joint Sub^{Regrstrar-|,Moosapet,RR district' Kothagudem' Khammam} District

¶47

2 TheCommissionerandlnspectorGeneralofRegistrar'andStamps'AP GoixonOa^{X Roads. HYderabad}

¶48

c6;t

¶49

\ 3. The Government of Ap., ep.byits Secretary, Revenue, Stamps and Registration Department. S'ecr'etariat, Ht;;i;ffi'^-

¶50

One CC to M/s G.JHANSI, Advocate. [OpUC]

¶51

Jwo CCs_to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGTSTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶52

Two CD Copies

BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10812024

I
t

\ Y1e S I ar€
(r
c
J
1 7 0Ell 10rl
O C
)
a €SPAT t- f-)

¶60

ORDER

¶61

WP.No.21285 of 2009

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Dr.P.S.Prasad v. The Joint Sub Registrar-I, Moosapet,R.R.district

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.P.S.Prasad v. The Joint Sub Registrar-I, Moosapet,R.R.district

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

Gunde Kalamma W/o G.Bikshapathi, Vs The State of Telangana

Badisa Narasaiah Vs Forest Range Officer

Sri Ragatee Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Konda Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Medipally Sucharitha Vs State of Telangana

Sri E. Bhadraiah Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others