/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6626 OF 2025 Between: Balugari Pedda Subbarayulu, S/o. Chinna Ankaiah, aged about 71 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Seshakkagaripalli Village, Bommavaram Post, Obulavari Mandal, Annamayya District-516108 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Registration and Stamps Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Annamayya District, Rayachoti. 3. The Sub Registrar, Pullampeta, Sub Registrar's Office Pullampeta, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. Thota Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Changaiah, aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Sirivaram Village, N.R.Puram Post, Penagalur Mandal, Presently residing at Behind Krishna Theatre, Ranganayakulapet Railway Kodur Town and Mandal, Annamaya District - 516101. ...RESPONDENTS 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, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, especially action of the Respondent No.2 in passing the Proceedings vide Lr.No.G2/1197/2022 dated 15-11-2022 whereby respondent No.3 refused to impound the unregistered sale agreement dated 30-06-2016 as being jllegally, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unfair apart from being contrary to Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and rules made thereunder and consequently set aside the orders of the respondent No.2 passed in Proceedings vide Lr.No.G2/1197/2022 dated 15-11-2022 and direct the respondent No.2 herein to collect the deficit stamp duty by impounding the unregistered sale agreement dated 30-06-2016. lA 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. Ill of 2022 on the file of Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHILUKURI KARTHIK Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REGISTRATION & STAMPS ; > ■ ' m. e. Counsel for the Respondent No.4: — The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010126062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6626/2025 Between: Balugaripedda Subbarayulu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CHILUKUR1 KARTHIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: % THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:6626/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: ‘‘pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents especially action of the Respondent No. 2 In passing the Proceedings vide Lr.No G2/1197/2022 dated 15.11.2022 whereby respondent no. 3 refused to impound the unregistered sale agreement dated 30.06.2016 as being Illegally, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unfair apart from being contrary to the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and rules made there under and consequently set aside the orders of the respondent no. 2 passed in Proceedings vide Lr.No.G2/1197/2022 dated 15.11.2022 and direct the respondent no. 2 herein to collect the deficit stamp duty by impounding the unregistered sale agreement dated 30.06.2016....” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government 2. Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4''' respondent herein is the absolute owner of a vacant house site admeasuring to an extent of 870 square feet, situated in Sy.No.684/1, ward, Krishna nagar area in Kodur village Fields, Railway Kodur Mandal, Annamayya District (herein referred to as “subject property” for brevity), having purchased the same from 3. one Mr.Balarama Raju, S/o.Venkata Veerarajau, vide a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.931 of 2000, dated 23.08.2000. Thereafter, the 4*'^ respondent executed an unregistered Agreement of Sale, dated 30.06.2016 in favour of the petitioner by receiving entire sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- with undertaking that he would execute a registered sale deed in his favour. Though the petitioner reminded the 4‘^ respondent on several occasions, the 4'^ respondent failed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner by avoiding and postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Then the petitioner instituted O.S.No.111 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur seeking relief for specific performance of the sale agreement and the Civil Courl has passed an order, dated 07.09.2022 setting the 4'^ respondent as exparte. Thereafter, the Court below was pleased to send the unregistered agreement of sale, dated 30.06.2016 for impounding under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. 1899 as the said document contains recitals of delivery of possession vide order, dated 13.09.2022 and directed the registry to address a letter to the District Registrar Respondent No.2 for impounding the agreement of sale, dated 30.06.2016 by collecting the requisite stamp duty. Accordingly, the Court sent the unregistered sale agreement to Respondent No.2 for impounding by collecting the stamp duty as per the prevailing rules and the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the sufficient stamp duty to Respondent No.2 for impounding the sale agreement. an i.e. While the things stood thus, Respondent No.2 has passed orders in 4. proceedings vide Lr.No.G2/1197/2022, dated 15.11.2022 refusing to impound the unregistered sale agreement, dated 30.06.2016 without any reason. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.27517 of 2023 and requested to pass a similar order in this writ petition also. 6. For better understanding the operative portion of the said order reads as follows: “...12. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 3 is directed to receive deficit stamp duty payable on the subject document dated 09.04.2009 from the petitioners and make necessary endorsements on the document as per Rules. It is however made clear that collection of deficit stamp duty does not in any way enhance the rights of the petitioners over the subject property covered under the document and that the same does not in any way de-notify the property. Further, the petitioners shall not claim any equity. There shall be no order as to costs ” 7. The same is not disputed by learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 8. In view of the same, let there be a similar order in this case, following the identical lines as in Writ Petition No.27517 of 2023, dated '21.03.2024. nd 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2 respondent to collect deficit stamp duty payable on the subject document dated 23.08.2000 from the petitioner and make necessary endorsements the document as per Rules. It is however made clear that collection of deficit stamp duty does not in any way enhance the rights of the petitioner over the subject property covered under the document and that the same does not in any way de-notify the property. Further, the petitioner shall not claim equity. on any Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.27517 of 2023, dated 21.03.2024, to this order. No costs. 10. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANTIREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Registration & Stamps Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department, District, Rayachoti. 3. The Sub Registrar, Pullampeta, Sub Registrar's Office Pullampeta, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh. Annamayya 4. Thota Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Changaiah, aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Sirivaram Village, N.R.Puram Post, Penagalur Mandal, Presently residing at Behind Krishna Theatre, Ranganayakulapet Railway Kodur Town and Mandal, Annamaya District - 516101. 5. One CC to Sri Chilukuri Karthik, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP for Registration & Stamps, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. 2l'o3 2W4) W.P.No.27517 of 2023, dated gi gi HIGH COURT DATED:07/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.6626 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 APHC010531322023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 27517/2023 Between: Vvsn Raju and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.VVSATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following; ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the Endorsement No.Gl/359/2022, dated 09.10.2023 of the District Registrar and Inspector of Registration, Visakhapatnam in refusing to impound the unregistered document submitted by the petitioners. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that M/s. Srirama Co-operative House Building Society Limited is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring 2 Ac.6.50 cents in Survey Nos. 141, 141A, 141/lA and 141P, 146, 146P, 151 and 151P of Vepagunta village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District having purchased the same under registered sale deeds. The society sold an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in favour of the petitioner, cents in favour of the 2"^ petitioner, an extent of Ac. 1-00 cents the 3^^^ petitioner and Ac.3-00 cents in favour of the 4^*^ petitioner under sale deed dated 09.04.2009 and when the above sale deeds an extent of Ac.2-00 in favour of were presented for registration, the 3''^ respondent refused to register the documents on the ground that the lands covered under those sale deeds are endowment lands and they are included in prohibitory list under Section 22-A(l)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908. The vendor of the petitioners had been that it would take steps for deletion of the property from prohibited representing properties list. It is the further case of the petitioners that the sale deeds insufficiently stamped and therefore they made an application to the 2 respondent requesting him to impound the documents by collecting stamp duty so as to enable them to file those documents before Tribunal. The 2"^ respondent referred the application to the 3 are nd the Endowments respondent and thereupon the 3"“ respondent passed the impugned ottiers refusing impound the documents on the ground that the property covered thereunder to is included in prohibitory list and therefore, the petitioners have to file 3 applications before the competent authority seeking deletion of land from prohibited property list. The provisions of the Indian Stamp Act has nothing to do with the provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act. It is imperative on the part of the officials to ensure payment of proper stamp duty on every instrument and the Act does not authorize the officials to hold an enquiry into the title dispute. Therefore, the 3'"'^ respondent went beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the Statute in refusing to impound the documents on the ground that they are in prohibited properties list vide the impugned orders and accordinglyprayed to set aside them. 3. The 3'’'’ respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition inter alia contending that, the documents presented by the petitioners were refused by the Sub Registrar, Gopalapatnam vide Refusal Order No.02/2023, dated 21.01.2022 and appeal preferred against the said refusal order vide Appeal No.05 of 2022 was dismissed by 3'^'^ respondent vide orders dated 10.06.2022. The aggrieved, filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No. 18648 of 2022 and this Court disposed of the same vide order dated 04.07.2022, directing the petitioner to make application to District Collector along with relevant records and on such application, the District Collector shall consider and dispose of the same. The petitioners, instead of filing application before the competent authority as per the said orders, again filed this writ petition seeking a direction for impounding. The Circular Memo vide Cir.Memo No.Sl/10723/2004, dated 03.06.2004 Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 at point No.5 on validation of documents under states that if the document attract ULC provisions, validation shall be done only after satisfying that the provisions of ULC Act are complied with and such other related Acts that override Indian Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, the petitioners advised to file applications before the competent authority for deletion of property from prohibited list. Sale deeds are chargeable with stamp duty sale consideration or market value, whichever is higher, and since the were on property is included in prohibited list, market value cannot be fixed. Since the property cannot be registered, market value cannot be given and therefore, the documents cannot be impounded. There are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri I/. VSatish, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Dilip Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. Sri .V.VSatish, learned counsel for petitioners, in elaboration would submit that the petitioners only intend to make good the deficit stamp duty to be paid on the sale deeds by impounding them. The Stamp Act imposes obligation on all the public servants for collection of deficit stamp duty by impounding the document, whenever such a document is placed before them. Refusing to impound the document amounts to shirking away the duty cast the 3''‘‘ respondent and causes loss to Government exchequer and inclusion of an on 5 the property in the prohibited properties list cannot be an embargo for impounding the document. The circular referred to in the counter is in relation to validation of the documents in contravention of ULC provisions and the instructions contained therein cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. The endeavour of the petitioners is to get the documents impounded only to produce them before the appropriate authorities along with appropriate application for getting the property denotified from the prohibitory list and nothing more than that. The impugned orders are highly unsustainable and arbitrary. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders and directing the authorities to impound the documents. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Chintalapudi Annapurnamma and another v. Andukuri Punnayya Sastry and other^ and Mogali Satyanarayana Reddy Srinilayam, rep. by its Managing Partner A.Raghavendra and other^. vs. 6. On the other hand, Sri Dilip Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, in elaboration would submit that since the property covered under the sale deeds is included in the list of prohibited properties, market value of the property cannot be fixed by the authority and thus impounding of the document cannot be made. The remedy available to the \ 2000(3) ALD 649 (DB) ^ 2023 see Online AP 1383 6 petitioners is to approach the competent authority for getting the property covered under the sale deeds denotified. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 8. Earlier, the petitioners filed writ petition vide W.P.No.18648 of 2022 and this Court disposed of the same vide orders dated 04.07.2023 directing the petitioners to make an application along with relevant documents to the District Collector. Accordingly, the petitioners filed application and the same is pending consideration. 9. In this writ petition, the petitioners want to get the sale deeds imounded by payment of deficit stamp duty for the sole purpose of producing the document before the authorities for denotification of the property covered under the said document from prohibited properties list. 10. In T.Purushotham Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesi'f, learned single Judge of this Court, while analyzing sections 33,38 and 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899,held that the scheme underlying these provisions would only provide for ensuring payment of proper stamp duty on every instrument executed between the parties. These provisions do not, in any manner, lay down that collection of additional stamp duty in accordance with the rate ^ W.P.No.11921 of 2010, dated 25.11.2010 prescribed thereunder would i document impounded i mechanism is laid down under the scheme the genuineness or otherwise of the documents laid down for the competent authority to get satisfied before collecting the deficit stamp duty, that collection of deficit stamp duty genuineness or otherwise of the document adjudicated by the Court before which pending. in a way establish the genuineness of the in respect of which deficit stamp duty is collected. No of the Act to hold an enquiry into nor any such requirement is about such genuineness In the said judgment, it is made clear does not amount to accepting the which issue requires to be the civil suit between the parties is 11. The circular referred to respondent is in relation to validation in the counter affidavit filed by the 3 of the documents contravening the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Therefore, the 3'- respondent cannot take aid of that circular to pass the impugned orders in relation to the subject on different footing. document, which altogether stands 12. In the above Respondent No.3 is directed to receive deficit stamp duty subject document dated 09.04.2009 from the view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, payable on the petitioners and make necessary per Rules. It is however made clear that endorsements on the document collection of deficit stamp duty does petitioners over the subject property as not in any way enhance the rights of the covered under the document and that e«5s 8 the same does not in any way denotify the property. Further, the petitioners shall not claim any equity. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand closed and interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 21^ March, 2024 RR 1