APHC010044392023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 4100/2022 Between: 1. ANUPATI SHILPA, W/O.LATE A. KALESWAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2. ANUPATI NAVYASHREE SAI,, D/O.LATE A.KALESWAR, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, MINOR, REP BY NATURAL GAURDIAN AND MOTHER ANUPATI SHILPA BOTH ARE R/O.DOOR.NO.5/139, SIVA SAI MANDIR, PENUKONDA, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUIDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRARI, OFFICE OF DISTRICT REGISTRAR KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 2 WRIT PETITION NO: 2193/2023 Between: 1. ANUPATI SHILPA, W/O.LATE A. KALESWA R, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O.DOO R. NO.5/139, SIVA SAI MANDIR, PENUKONDA, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUIDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, , SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, , KAPADA, YSR KADAPA. 5. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRARI, TIRUPATI RURAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 6. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRARI, PENUKONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following: 3 COMMON ORDER: In W.P.Nos.4100 of 2022 and W.P.No.2193 of 2023, a common order was passed in both the writ petitions. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. W.P.No.4100 of 2022 was filed questioning the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 10.12.2021, directing the petitioners to pay deficit stamp duty and registration fee of Rs.63,57,990/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order, in default the same would be recovered as per Section 48 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the explanation offered by the petitioners vide representation dated 27.11.2021 was not properly considered by the 3rd respondent and thereby passed the above said impugned order dated 10.12.2021. The self-acquired property of the deceased 1st petitioner’s husband was partitioned between the wife and daughter/petitioners herein together as one share and the remaining share was given to the mother of the deceased and accordingly, a partition deed was reduced into writing, as the 2nd petitioner/the daughter of the 1st petitioner was a minor as on the said date. In other words, the 4 mother and minor daughter kept one share together and another share was given to the 1st petitioner’s mother-in-law. Accordingly, the stamp duty was paid earlier and was already accepted by the authorities but later on, in view of the internal inspection, the said transaction was reviewed by the respondent authorities concerned behind the back of the parties concerned and without proper verification the impugned notice was issued, for which the explanation was submitted by the petitioners as stated above. Without considering the same, the 3rd respondent passed the above said impugned order dated 10.12.2021, which is contrary to law. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the said impugned order is contrary to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court passed in W.P.No.16523 of 2012, dated 02.02.2015. According to the said judgment, in the partition of the property into two shares, the bigger share shall be deemed to be one from which the other share has been separated and accordingly, the stamp duty has to be collected on the smaller share only. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that in the facts and circumstances of the said case referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the above said writ petition dated 02.02.2015, 5 there was a Will executed by one Smt. Bidami Bai Soni, bequeathing her 1/5th share in favour of the petitioner therein. In pursuance of the same, the partition deed dated 05.09.2008 was executed therein and upon interpretation of the same, the erstwhile High Court came to such decision. But in the present case, there is no such Will or any testamentary disposition by the deceased Anupati Kaleshwar, the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner. 7. It is further submitted that when there is a deed of partition executed among family members, including the self-acquired property of any of the family members along with joint family property, the duty chargeable on such instrument shall be @ 4% treating it as commenced on the total value of the property without exempting any such share. Such an instrument shall be classified under Article 20 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the corresponding stamp duty shall be levied on the total value of the property. In the present facts and circumstances, the subject document cannot be strictly construed as partition deed and shall be treated as a conveyance deed. 8. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, as the impugned order does not express the legal position as contended by the petitioners and as there was no personal opportunity of 6 hearing given at the time of passing the impugned order, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the petitioners to submit a detailed representation to the 3rd respondent, enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order to consider the matter afresh. On receipt of the same, the 3rd respondent without reference to the impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2021, shall consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, including the petitioners and upon verification of the records, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter. Pending the above said enquiry, there shall not be any coercive action. 9. Since the orders have already been passed in W.P.No.4100 of 2022, no further orders are required in W.P.No.2193 of 2023 and subject to the outcome of the same, further transactions shall be entertained. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN Dt.18.11.2025 SR