1 APHC010302182022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1154/2022 Between: 1.GADI CHINA KONDA, S/O LATE SRI SANYASAYYA, HINDU, AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, RIO MALLAMPETA 533 406, ROWTHULAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT 2.GADI RAMANA, S/O SRI CHINA KONDA, HINDU, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O MALLAMPETA 533 406, ROWTHULAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT 3.GADI GOVINDULU, S/O SRI CHINA KONDA, HINDU, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, RIO MALLAMPETA 533 406, ROWTHULAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT 4.GADI SIVA, S/O SRI CHINA KONDA, HINDU, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, RIO MALLAMPETA 533 406, ROWTHULAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.SOMAROUTH CHANDRA MOULI, S/o Sri Venkanna Padala, R/o Balaramapuram 533 406, Rowthulapudi Mandal, Kakinada District ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toCourt aggrieved by the Order made in I.A.No. 33 of 2019 in O.S.No. 190 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge - Cum - I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, dated 15-03-2021 IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings 0.S.No. 190 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the 1 Addl. Junior Civil Judge — Cum — I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, pending disposal of the present C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1.V V SATISH The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1154 of 2022 ORDER: 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge – Cum – I Additional Junior Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni in I.A.No.33 of 2019 in O.S.No.190 of 2015, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 38(2) of Indian Stamp Act, seeking to send the certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer (M.R.O.), along with agreement of sale, to the District Registrar for collection of deficit stamp duty on the unregistered agreement dated 19.06.1999 was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners claimed possession over the suit schedule property by virtue of an unregistered agreement of sale dated 19.06.1999 and intended to mark the said document as an exhibit. However, the learned trial Court rejected the same on the ground that the document was not duly stamped as required under the Stamp Act. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application seeking impounding of the said agreement of sale, which was allowed by the learned trial Court, and the document was accordingly forwarded to the concerned authority for levy of the requisite stamp duty. 3. The District Registrar, in turn, forwarded the said document to the concerned Tahsildar for the purpose of valuation and determination of 3 the applicable stamp duty. The Tahsildar appears to have submitted a letter intimating that the land covered under Survey No.21 is an assigned land and falls under the prohibited list. Subsequently, the petitioners filed I.A. No.33 of 2019 seeking a direction to the Court to direct the concerned authority to levy the appropriate stamp duty, without regard to the letter issued by the Tahsildar. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court erred in holding that the certificate furnished by the Village Revenue Officer (VRO) was not an authenticated document. 4. On the contrary, the petitioners have submitted a certificate issued by the concerned Tahsildar, wherein it is stated that the land in Survey No.21, admeasuring Ac.30.85 cents, is neither Government land nor assigned land, and that the entire extent is classified as zirayati land. The learned Judge, however, relied upon a certificate purportedly issued by the Village Revenue Officer (V.R.O.), which was neither filed by the petitioners nor by the respondents. 5. It is apparent that the learned Judge has misread the certificate issued by the Tahsildar as that of the V.R.O., whereas the certificate of the Tahsildar, in unequivocal terms, clearly indicates that the land in Survey No.21 is neither Government land nor assigned land. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners ought to have filed a writ petition challenging the order of the District Registrar returning the said document and calling for objections. 4 7. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 8. The short point for consideration is Whether the certificate issued by the Tahsildar can be conclusion proof of the petitioners’ title or possession, or whether the petitioners are required to independently establish their title and possession before the learned trial Court ? 9. The order passed by the learned Judge dismissing the petition does not withstand scrutiny in law, as it is the bounden duty of the District Registrar to determine the applicable stamp duty payable on a document proposed to be marked. It is also well settled that payment of deficit stamp duty does not, by itself, confer any title or possession over the property which is the subject matter of the document. It is for the parties relying upon such document to establish their title, possession, or any other right claimed thereunder, at the stage of trial. 10. On these considerations, the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge – Cum – I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni in I.A.No.33 of 2019 in O.S.No.190 of 2015, is hereby set aside. The document furnished by the petitioners shall be sent to the concerned District Registrar for determination of the deficit stamp duty and penalty, if any, payable by the petitioners. 11. Considering the submission that the suit was filed in the year 2015, the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge – Cum – I Additional Junior Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni shall endeavour to dispose off 5 the suit in O.S.No.190 of 2015 on merits, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of the order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:06.04.2026 KGM 6 161 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1154 of 2022 Date: 06.04.2026 KGM