APHC010373752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19183/2025 Between: 1. CATTAMANCHI HARINI REDDY, W/O. NEERISH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,RESIDING AT REDDY STREET, CATTAMANCHI,CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. C. SUREKHA,, W/O. LATE. C. SUBASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT REDDY STREET, CATTAMANCHI,CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. C. HARITHA,, W/O. LATE. C. SUBASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. RESIDING AT REDDY STREET, CATTAMANCHI, CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, STAMPS AND REGISTRATIONS/REVENUE (R.I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATIONS, RK SPRING VALLEY APARTMENTS, EDUPUGALLU, KANKIPADU, NTR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. SUB REGISTRAR, CHITTOOR,CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the action of the Respondent No.4 in issuing the notice vide Notice.No.G1/474/2024 dated 06.01.2025 in demanding to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,03,400/- with penalty Rs. 10,34,000/- total aggregating to Rs. 11,37,400/- for the unregistered agreement of sale dated 25.05.2005 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, dehors jurisdiction and contrary to section 47-A (2) of the stamp Act and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A and the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Rules made there under besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to set aside the notice, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend the notice vide Notice.No. Gl/474/2024 dated 06.01.2025 issued by the 4th Respondent in demanding to pay deficient stamp duty of Rs.1,03,400/- with penalty Rs. 10,34,000/- total aggregating to Rs. 11,37,400/- for the unregistered agreement of sale dated 25.05.2005, pending disposal of the above writ petition pending / disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VUBBARA DUSHYANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri V.Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for the respondents. 2. The above writ petition has been filed impugning the notice issued by the 4th respondent vide Notice No.G1/474/2024, dated 06.01.2025, demanding to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,03,400/- with a penalty of Rs.10,34,000/- for the unregistered agreement of sale dated 25.05.2005, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. a) The petitioners’ father filed the suit O.S.No.339 of 2018 against C.Susheel Rani and others seeking specific performance. The petitioners’ father died on 06.07.2020, pending the suit, and thereafter the petitioners, being the legal representatives, came on record as the plaintiffs 2 to 4. Pending the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.514 of 2023 under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 151 of CPC to send the agreement of sale dated 25.05.2005 to the District Registrar, Chittoor, for impounding the same in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. The I.A. was allowed, and the document was sent to the District Registrar for impounding. b)The District Registrar, by notice impugned, directed the petitioners to pay stamp duty of Rs.1,03,400/- with a penalty of Rs.10,34,000/-, totaling Rs.11,37,400/- for impounding the document. The 4th respondent directed the petitioners to appear either in person or through counsel within 15 days to pay the deficit duty or to put forth the objections, if any, in writing. 4. The notice dated 06.01.2025, impugned in the writ petition, was communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners, having received the notice, kept quiet for nearly 5 months and filed the above writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without providing an opportunity under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the 4th respondent determined the deficit stamp duty and penalty. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration supported the impugned notice. CONSIDERATION: 7. The petitioners, being the plaintiffs, filed I.A.No.514 of 2023 under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act for impounding the document. The 4th respondent adhered to the procedure under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, calculated the deficit stamp duty and penalty as mentioned in the impugned notice. In fact, a perusal of Ex.P1 notice, the authority directed the petitioners to appear either in person or through counsel within 15 days to pay the deficit duty or to put forth the objections, if any, in writing. However, the petitioners, without submitting any objections, filed the above writ petition. 8. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner before impounding the document, and the procedure adopted by the District Registrar is contrary to Sec 47A of the Act. 9. Chapter IV of the Indian Stamp Act outlines ‘the instruments not duly stamped’. The said chapter starts with Section 33 and ends with Section 48. While Section 33 of the Act mandates examination and impounding of instruments, Section 40 of the Act prescribes the Collector’s power to stamp instruments impounded. This Court, at this juncture, is not dealing with the sections like Sections 35, 38 etc. Section 47A delineates how the instruments of conveyance etc., under-valued are to be dealt with. 10. As per the scheme of the Act, Section 40 of the Act expresses the Collector's power to stamp an instrument impounded under Sections 33 and 38, whereas Section 47-A, the State Amendment Act, prescribes the procedure regarding undervalued instruments of conveyance etc. Both sections operate at different phases. Under Section 47A, the registering authority will make a reference or the Collector or the Inspector General, suo moto, exercise the jurisdiction as per the time stipulated therein and the appeals etc. 11. In the case at hand, the petitioners filed an interlocutory application before the Court and got the document sent for impounding. The authority impounded the document as per Section 40 (1)(b) of the Act and communicated to the petitioners to appear before the authority either in person or through an advocate and to file objections, if any. The petitioners could have filed objections, if any, to the calculation i.e. the market value arrived at or the penalty. Without availing of the same, after expiry of the time set out, the petitioners approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the absence of any illegality, violation of statutory procedure, lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice, when the authority adhered to the procedure under the Act, the writ petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not maintainable. This Court also holds that Section 47A does not apply to the present fact situation. 13. Given the facts and circumstances, this court does not find any merit in the writ petition, and the writ petition merits no consideration. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD