MEKALA RAJU Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners purchased an extent of Ac. 5.00 of land in Survey No. 165/2 of Joharapuram Village, Kurnool District through a sale deed dated 17.04.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 38,000/- per acre. The document was registered with the Joint-Sub-Registrar, Kurnool, 3rd respondent. Two years after the sale deed was executed, the District Registrar for Assurances, Kurnool, 2nd respondent herein, issued a notice, dated 24.03.2009 to the petitioners under Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the Act'). It was mentioned that though the value of the land in Survey No. 165/2 according to the Market Value Guidelines Register was Rs. 270/- per square yard, the document was executed by adopting the market value at the rate of Rs. 38,000/- per acre. It was also mentioned that the total value of the property as per the Guidelines Register was Rs. 65,34,000/- and deficit stamp duty and registration charges of Rs. 6,02,680/- is to be paid. The petitioners were given the option either to pay the amount or to submit objections or representation. The petitioners submitted a representation, dated 07.04,2009 in reply to the show cause notice. They stated that the value of the property was furnished by the 3rd respondent himself before the document was registered and that it was fixed on the basis of the entries in the basic value register. They pleaded that the show cause notice is bereft of any reasons and that they are not liable to pay the demanded amount. Not satisfied with that, the 2"d respondent passed an order dated 13.04.2009 requiring the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 6,02,680/- towards deficit stamp duty and registration fee. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioners submit that the document was initially presented by paying stamp duty of Rs. 200/- and it is only thereafter, that the 3rd respondent assessed correct market value of the property and determined the stamp duty and registration charges. They contend that the show cause notice did not mention the very basis for demanding the alleged deficit amount.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that due to inadvertent mistake, the 3rd respondent took the value of the property at the rate of Rs. 38,000/- per acre, though it ought to have been taken on the basis of cost per square yard. It is also stated that the prescribed procedure was followed and that the impugned order was passed in accordance with law.