IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * * * WRIT PETITION NO.12332 OF 2024 Between: # SMT.N.SAKUNTALA SYAMA KUMARI …Petitioner And $ THE SUB REGISTRAR and Others …Respondents Date of Judgment pronounced : 16.03.2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No may be allowed to see the judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals: 3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No Of the Judgment? _________________________ JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN + WRIT PETITION NO.12332 OF 2024 % Dated: 16.03.2026 Between: # SMT.N.SAKUNTALA SYAMA KUMARI …Petitioner And $ THE SUB REGISTRAR and Others …Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Sri G RAMA GOPAL ^ Counsel for Respondent(s) : 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS <GIST : >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: 1. (2007) 14 SCC 339 APHC010248292024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12332/2024 Between: 1. SMT.N.SAKUNTALA SYAMA KUMARI,, W/O.SATYANARAYANA RAJU, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O.DR.NO.J-1706, APARNA SIREN PARK, MASJID BANDA ROAD, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD-500084, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, V-SQUARE BUILDING, KSR PARK ROAD, WARD NO.2, TADEPALLI-522501, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR 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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent/Sub-Registrar to levy the stamp duty and registration charges as on the date of presentation of the sale deed by the Hon'ble XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in EP No.58 of 2017 in OS No.320 of 2004 and its rejection by the Sub-Registrar, Madhurawada by order dated 24.03.2005 by virtue of the order dated 30.01.2015 in WP No.9053 of 2005 in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to direct the 1st Respondent/Sub -Registrar to levy the stamp duty and registration charges as on the date of presentation of the sale deed by the Hon’ble XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in EP No.58 of 2017 in OS No.320 of 2004 and its rejection by the Sub-Registrar, Madhurawada by order dated 24.03.2005 by virtue of the order dated 30.01.2015 in WP No.9053 of 2005, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 1st respondent/ the Sub Registrar in not levying the stamp duty and registration charges as on the date of presentation of the sale deed by the XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in E.P.No.58 of 2017 in O.S.No.320 of 2004 and its rejection by the 1st respondent vide order dated 24.03.2005 is contrary to the order passed in W.P.No.9053 of 2005 dated 30.01.2015. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.335/3 (old Sy.No.374 & 375) of Madhuravada Village from its owner Smt. Akkaraboina Appayamma under a possessory agreement of sale dated 30.12.1987. Later the said vendor died on 14.10.1989 before executing a regular sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, she was constrained to initiate action in O.S.No.320 of 2004 on the file of IX Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Visakhapatnam against the legal representatives i.e., 1) A.Rama Rao (son) and 2) N.Appayamma (daughter) of the deceased vendor Smt.Akkaraboina Appayamma seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 30.12.1987 by executing a regular sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2005. Then she filed E.P.No.5 of 2005 in O.S.No.320 of 2004 seeking execution of decree of specific performance dated 09.02.2005. The petitioner deposited the necessary stamp duty and penalty of Rs.1,31,934/- before the executing court and the sale deed was duly drafted by the executing court and the same was sent for registration to the 1st respondent. But to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the 1st respondent sent back the sale deed without its registration vide his letter dated 24.03.2005 informing the executing court that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam in his letter dated 11.04.2002 reported that the land in Sy.No.335/3 is a government land. Pursuant to the said letter of the 1st respondent dated 24.03.2005, the executing court dismissed the E.P. No.5 of 2005 vide order dated 29.03.2005 observing that “the Sub-Registrar sent a letter stating that the decree schedule property is a government property and not possible to register the document, so, the EP was dismissed as it is not possible to register the document”. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the subject land is a private ryotwari patta land of the petitioner’s deceased vendor and it is not a government land. The petitioner’s vendor was the absolute owner who enjoyed the property for more than four decades and in pursuance of the above said possessory agreement of sale dated 30.12.1987 the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. Hence, the 1st respondent is bound to register the documents produced before him in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules made there under. The 1st respondent is not bound by any of the directions issued by the MRO or any other Officer and the prohibition of registration of the lands is applicable to the lands which are notified under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act only. Admittedly, there is no such notification with respect to the subject land in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.335/3 of Madhurawada Village. 5. In view of the orders passed by the erstwhile High Court in W.P.No.14207 of 1997 dated 08.02.2005 the impugned letter of the 1st respondent dated 24.03.2005 is liable to be set aside. However, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.9053 of 2005 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same was allowed vide order dated 30.01.2015 giving liberty to the petitioner to take further steps for praying the executing court to send the sale deed for registration to the 1st respondent and when such sale deed is presented, it shall be considered in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Stamp Act, 1899 without raising any objection over the subject land. He further contends that merely because the document is registered, the petitioner cannot be said to have acquired better title to the property than what was vested in the vendor of the petitioner and it is always open for the State to take appropriate course of action as warranted under law. In pursuance of the above said directions of the erstwhile High Court dated 30.01.2015, the petitioner filed E.P.No.58 of 2017 along with draft sale deed. Then the executing court addressed a letter to the 1st respondent dated 25.08.2018 and directed the decree holder on 30.09.2019 to take steps to estimate payment of stamp duty and registration charges and subsequently on 02.01.2021 passed the order as under: “Steps not taken. Heard the advocate for DHR. Steps are not being taken since 30.09.2019. As per the Hon'ble High Court, dated 30.01.2015, there is a direction to Sub- Registrar of Madhurawada to register the document without raising any objections. Advocate for the petitioner represented that the DHR is unable to move due to ill-health and she has to come from Hyderabad. The matter is posted to 27.01.2022". 6. In pursuance of the application of the petitioner, the executing court summoned the 1st respondent in the light of directions in W.P.No.9053 of 2005 dated 30.01.2015. Then the 1st respondent informed the executing court by calculating the levy of stamp duty and registration charges as on that date as Rs.5,26,32,810/- towards stamp duty, registration charges as Rs.80,97,350/- and the user charges as Rs.500/-. Here the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner’s sale deed is required to be levied the stamp duty as on 24.03.2005 the date on which the registration was illegally declined by the 1st respondent. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed E.A.No.8 of 2024 in the above said E.P. No.58 of 2017 seeking a direction from the executing court to the 1st respondent to register the E.P. schedule property/ the subject property by calculating the stamp duty and registration charges as on 24.03.2005 as the 1st respondent refused to register the sale deed by his proceedings dated 24.03.2005. 7. Further, the above said proceedings dated 24.03.2005 passed by the 1st respondent was questioned in W.P.No.9053 of 2006 which was allowed by the erstwhile High Court vide order dated 30.01.2015. But the executing court proceeded to dismiss the E.A.No.8 of 2024 in E.P.No.58 of 2017 in O.S.No.320 of 2004 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam vide order dated 13.03.2024 observing that the executing court cannot issue a direction to the Sub-Registrar/ the 1st respondent to collect the stamp duty and registration charges prevailing as on 24.03.2005. Hence, this writ petition. 8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the counter of the 1st respondent submits that since the basic market value had not been fixed by the Market Value Committee for the said land, the then Sub-Registrar, Madhurawada addressed a letter dated 28.07.2016 to the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam requesting fixation of market value in accordance with the Circular Memo Rc.No.MVI/14137/2010 dated 26.10.2010 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps and thereafter, the 1st respondent informed the executing court that the applicable stamp duty is of Rs.5,26,32,810/-, registration charges is of Rs.80,97,350/- and user charges is of Rs.500/-. Meanwhile, the then District Collector, Visakhapatnam vide letter dated 19.09.2017 communicated the list of prohibited properties. It is true that the petitioner filed E.A.No.8 of 2024 in E.P.No.58 of 2017 in O.S.No.320 of 2004 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to register the subject land with the stamp duty, registration charges, user charges and other charges prevailing as on 24.03.2005 but the executing court rightly dismissed the same observing that no provision of law empowers the executing court to issue a direction to the concerned Sub-Registrar to collect the stamp duty and registration charges as on 24.03.2005. 9. He further submits that the executing court sent only a draft sale deed to the 1st respondent and has not sent the original sale deed for the subject property till date. Since, Madhurawada village is completely converted into urbanized area, no agriculture rate is available in Market Value Guidelines Register. The market value fixed for house sites in 27th ward was ranging from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per square yard as on 01.07.2016. As on date the market value fixed for the locality of the 27th ward (IT SEZ) is Rs.44,000/- per square yard. 10. He further submits that the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps issued a Circular Memo dated 07.05.2008 directing all the registering authorities to determine valuation of the instrument on the basis of the prevailing guidelines of market value of the property as on the date when the document was tendered by the vendor/ purchaser at the time of registration of sale deed and that the said person shall pay the stamp duty, registration charges and surcharges if any assessed as per the provisions of the Act. Even as per the Circular Memo No.S1/12097/2006 dated 02.02.2010 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, the market value as on the date of presentation of the document shall be adopted for levying duties and fees. Unless the market value of the property is determined, the registration of sale deed cannot be done as the duties and charges have to be levied on the sale consideration or market value of the property whichever is higher under the provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 r/w Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Hence, the petitioner’s claim seeking levy of stamp duty and registration charges basing upon the rates prevailing as on 24.03.2005 is wholly untenable and contrary to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others vs. Khandaka Jain Jewellers1 in Civil Appeal No.5273 of 2007 dated 16.11.2007 wherein at para Nos.22, 25 & 26 it was held as under: “22. In this background, if we construe Section 17 read with Section 2(12) then there is no manner of doubt that at the time of registration, the registering authority is under an obligation to ascertain the correct market value at that time, and should not go by the value mentioned in the instrument. “25. In Sub-Registrar, Kodad Town and Mandal¹ the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court felt persuaded on account of 30 years' long litigation and, therefore, declined to send the papers back to the Collector for valuation at the market value. With great respect, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is against the principles of interpretation of a taxing statute. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is not correct. 26. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The Collector shall determine the valuation of the instrument on the basis of the market value of the property at the date when the document was tendered by the respondent for registration, and the respondent shall pay the stamp duty 1 (2007) 14 SCC 339 charges and surcharge, if any, as assessed by the Collector as per the provisions of the Act. The appeal of the State is allowed. No order as to costs.” 12. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also relies upon the very same judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 14 SCC 339. 13. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, upon consideration of the rival submissions made and the case law, it is to be seen that there is no dispute with regard to the above said facts, dates and events, but the only point for consideration before this court in this writ petition is as under: Which date has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of levying stamp duty, registration charges and other charges etc., under the Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908 and Rules made there under in the facts and circumstances of this case? 14. Admittedly, the petitioner purchased the subject land under an agreement of sale dated 30.12.1987, the suit for specific performance was decreed on 09.02.2005, the petitioner initially deposited the stamp duty and penalty of Rs.1,31,934/- in E.P.No.5 of 2005 in O.S.No.320 of 2004 before the executing court to draft the sale deed and to send it to the 1st respondent for registration, the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the executing court dated 24.03.2005 informing that as per the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam dated 11.04.2002 it is a government land, then the executing court dismissed the E.P.No.5 of 2005 dated 29.03.2005, the W.P.No.9053 of 2005 filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 30.01.2015, then the petitioner filed E.P.No.58 of 2017 along with draft sale deed before the executing court and again the said executing court addressed a letter dated 25.08.2018 to the 1st respondent and the executing court summoned the 1st respondent as per the directions of the erstwhile High Court vide order dated 30.01.2015. Then the 1st respondent informed the executing court about the charges leviable as stated above Rs.5,26,32,810/- towards stamp duty, Rs.80,97,350/- towards registration charges and Rs.500/- towards user charges and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed E.A.No.8 of 2024 in the above said E.P. before the executing court to register the subject property by calculating the stamp duty and registration charges as on 24.03.2005 and then the executing court dismissed the E.A.No.8 of 2024 vide order dated 13.03.2024 observing that the executing court cannot issue a direction to the 1st respondent to collect the stamp duty and registration charges prevailing as on 24.03.2005. 15. 15. In the back drop of the above said dates and events and as per the factual matrix, it is to be seen that the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court arises under the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 and it was held that, at the time of registration, the registering authority is under an obligation to ascertain the correct market value at that time and should not go by the value of the instruments while interpreting the Section 17 read with Section 2(12) of the said Act and it was further held that the Collector shall determine the valuation of the instrument on the basis of market value of the property at the date when the document was tendered by the respondent therein for registration and he shall pay the stamp duty charges and surcharge, if any as assessed by the Collector as per the provisions of the Act. Specifically in this case, when the petitioner approached the erstwhile High Court in W.P.No.9053 of 2005 on the said issue, the same was allowed vide order dated 30.01.2015 as under: “8. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. Liberty is given to the petitioner to take further steps to pray the Execution Court to send the sale deed for registration to the third respondent and as and when such sale deed is presented before him, 3rd respondent shall consider the same in accordance with the Indian Registration At, 1908 and Stamps Act, 1899 without raising objection that land in Sy.No.335/3 of Madhurawada village is classified as Government land. It is needless to observe that merely because the document is registered, petitioner cannot be said to have acquired better title to the property than what was vested in the vendor of the petitioner and it is always open to the State to take appropriate course of action as warranted by law, if according to the State the land belongs to the State or there is a prohibition against alienation of the land or for any other valid reason.” 16. Accordingly, as could be seen from the above said order of the erstwhile High Court the liberty is given to the petitioner herein to take further steps praying the executing court to send the sale deed for registration to the respondent and as and when such sale deed is presented before him, he shall consider the same in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Stamp Act, 1899 without raising the objection that the land in Sy.No.335/3 of Madhurawada village is classified as government land. The further observations made as stated above are not necessary for the present to resolve the issue involved in this case. Hence not touched upon. 17. On careful appreciation of the material available on record, it is to be seen that E.A.No.8 of 2024 was filed in E.P.No.58 of 2017 in O.S.No.320 of 2004 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in pursuance of the orders of the erstwhile High Court in W.P.No.9053 of 2005 dated 30.01.2015 on 29.12.2023. But the executing court instead of considering the said E.A. No.8 of 2024 only in the light of the directions of the erstwhile High Court dated 30.01.2015 went into the very same issue which was considered by the erstwhile High Court in the above said writ petition and held that it has no power to go into it and as such the E.A. was dismissed totally on an erroneous view of law and fact by framing a wrong issue in the said E.A. The executing court ought to have taken note of the date of filing of E.A. No.8 of 2024 in the above said execution proceedings dated 29.12.2023 as the material date for the purpose of preparing the draft sale deed for collection of stamp duty, registration charges and other charges etc. by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act and Rules made there under in furtherance of carrying out the orders of the erstwhile High Court dated 30.01.2015. Instead of that the said E.A. was dismissed on 13.03.2024 as observed above thereby causing further delay in the matter leading to another round of litigation by way of filing this writ petition on 18.06.2024. 18. In due course, by efflux of time, the nature of the land, the market value of the land, the basic value of the land, the stamp duty charges, registration charges and user charges all are changed. But at the same time, the petitioner cannot be put to hold heavy duties and charges unreasonably when there is no fault on the part of her in filing the above said E.A. No.8 of 2024 in the above said execution proceedings pursuant to the directions of the erstwhile High Court dated 30.01.2015. 19. To set right the things and to set the law in motion, for the purpose of presentation of the sale deed, paying of stamp duty and registration charges etc., again the petitioner is given liberty to file fresh E.A. in the above said E.P. No.58 of 2017 in O.S.No.320 of 2004 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to refer it to the 1st respondent for the purpose of registration of the subject land in accordance with the provisions of law by purely taking into consideration the date of filing of the earlier E.A. for the above said purpose dated 29.12.2023 as the date of presentation of the sale deed document for the purpose of levying stamp duty and collection of registration charges and other charges etc., to comply with all the formalities by the respondent authorities concerned. As directed above, the respondent authorities concerned shall act upon. For the said purpose, the order in E.A.No.8 of 2024 in E.P.No.58 of 2017 in O.S.No.320 of 2004 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam dated 13.03.2024 is set aside herewith. It is needless to mention that the executing court shall send the duly drafted sale deed afresh to the respondent No.1 for registration in accordance with law. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 16.03.2026 Note: LR to be marked B/O NNN