APHC010318242019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2965/2019 Between: The District Registrar Of Assurances ...PETITIONER AND Kotha Priyanka and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M.V. PRATAP KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2915/2019 Between: The District Registrar Of Assurances ...PETITIONER AND Tottempudi Gopichand ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M.V. PRATAP KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2954/2019 Between: The District Registrar Of Assurance ...PETITIONER AND Bhavya Constructions Pvt Ltd ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M.V. PRATAP KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2962/2019 Between: The District Registrar Of Assurances, Registration And Stamps ...PETITIONER AND Pakala Siva Kumar ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M.V. PRATAP KUMAR 3 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2967/2019 Between: The District Registrar Of Assurances ...PETITIONER AND Kanneganti Siddhatha ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M.V. PRATAP KUMAR 4 The Court made the following order: The issue involved in all the appeals is similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The District Registrar preferred the present appeals aggrieved by order dated 19.03.2019, passed in various appeals that were filed on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The brief facts of the appeals are as follows: 3. The respondent presented sale deed before the Sub Registrar, Gajuvaka for registration. The said sale deed was kept pending, on the ground that the property is not valued and referred the same to the District Registrar and Collector under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act. The said authority by proceedings dated 26/08/2011, directed the respondent to pay the deficit stamp duty by determining the market value of the property as Rs.2,17,80,000/-. The said order was assailed by the respondent by preferring the above civil miscellaneous appeals, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge after hearing the appeal, by order dated 19.03.2019, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order dated 26.08.2011, passed by the District Collector. 5 Questioning the said order the State preferred the present revision petition. 4. Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and learned counsel for the respondent. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property is situated adjacent to residential area and NH5 is also located at a distance of 1½ km. It is further contended that the subject lands are surrounded with Visakha Diary and other industries like BHPV etc. As such, there is a scope for development activity around the subject property. It is further contended that while passing order dated 26.08.2011, the District Collector has taken into consideration the sale deed vide document No.3795/2010, where under the market value of the property was shown as Rs.4,500/- per Sq Yard pertaining to Sy.No.9/10 of Mindi Village. The petitioner further contends that the respondent did not properly value the subject property by suppressing the actual market value and contends that the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge did not consider the same. 6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent would submit that the District Collector by relying on one particular sale deed 6 pertaining to Mindi Village, came to the conclusion that the development activity is under way in and around the property of the respondent. It is further contended that the subject property is agricultural land and the Tahsildar, Gajuvaka also issued proceedings in L.Dis.No.247/2011/SA, dated 29.03.2011 to that effect, whereas the sale deed vide document No.3795/2010 relied on by the District Collector, the land therein is classified as non- agricultural land. Therefore, it is prayed that the District Collector ought not to have taken into consideration of the said transaction in as much as the land therein is classified as non-agricultural land. It is further contended that merely because there will be a future development in and around the subject land, the same cannot be taking into consideration for fixing the market value. It is further contended by the counsel for the respondent that the market value of the subject land was paid as per the basic value register maintained by the Registrar of Assurances and prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 7. On a perusal of the order passed by the District Collector, it is clear that reliance is placed on a single sale transaction, where under the market value was adopted at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per 7 Sq Yrd. Apart from the same, the land was also qualified as non- agricultural land in the said sale transaction. 8. Coming to the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the subject property is classified as agricultural land and the same is also stated by proceedings dated 29.03.2011, issued by the Tahsildar, Gajuvaka. Further, the respondent paid the stamp duty as per the procedure contemplated under Rule 5 of AP (Prevention of undervaluation) Rules 1975, and also as per the basic value register maintained by the Registrar of Assurances. The District Collector also failed to take note of the fact that the subject property remains as agricultural land and nothing is placed on record to show that the subject property is converted into non-agricultural purpose. Therefore, the order passed by the District Collector was rightly set aside by the trial Court. Further, the counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on judgment represented in the matter of Maddula Rama Krishna Rao Vs. The subordinate Judge Kovvur and Ors1. Where under, this Court observed that under: I am unable to accept these contentions of the Government Pleader. Even though it was a matter of valuation, the principle on which the valuation is made, is in question. The petitioner had 1 (1996)1 ALT 335 8 pointed out that the property was only an agricultural land and the contiguous lands were also agricultural lands and the valuation made by him was in conformity with the valuation made of adjacent lands. Yet both the Sub-Registrar and Collector proceeded on the basis of the market value fixed by the Sub- Registrar, based on the potential development. A perusal of Section 47-A shows that it is only the market value which is to be determined and that the potential value based on nature of the land and the future possibilities, is irrelevant. How the purchaser may put it to use subsequent to the purchase or develop the land is of no consequence for valuing the land as on that date. Moreover the price at which the transaction was concluded between the petitioner and his vendor being at arms length generally denotes the market value by itself, unless there is evidence to show that the said value was either a fancy price or a concession granted because of certain relationship between the parties to the transaction. In the present case, there is no such allegation by the department. 9. The case on hand is squarely covered by the above judgment in as much as the petitioner did not place any material to show that the market value of the property was intentionally shown less in order to get away with the stamp duty. Further, as observed by this Court while fixing the market value, the future possibilities and the potential value of the land need not be taken into consideration. Therefore, the order dated 26.08.2011, passed by the District Collector was rightly set aside by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. In view of the same, there are no merits in the revision petitions and accordingly they are dismissed. 9 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.28.02.2025 DSB 10 84 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR C.R.P.Nos.2965, 2915, 2954, 2962 & 2967 of 2019 Date: 28.02.2025 U DSB