PHILOMENA EDUCATION FOUNDATION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SOLE TRUSTEE Y PHILOMENA Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions are by the same petitioner and arise under identical circumstances. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner purchased an extent of 955 sq. yards of land situated in premises bearing No. 6-3-1089, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, through a sale deed dated 12-04-1992 from Mrs. Zehra Begum. Two more bits in the neighbourhood, admeasuring 595 sq. yards are purchased by the petitioner through sale deeds dated 25-04-1997 from Syed Ahmed Hassan. It is stated that the area covered by the three sale deeds was uneven and full of boulders, and when areas covered by the three sale deeds were measured, after clearing the boulders and levelling the land, it emerged that the extents are more. Therefore, the petitioner got executed the deeds of rectification dated 03-02-2009, in relation to the three sale deeds and presented the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, the 3rd respondent in all the writ petitions. Stamp duty was paid for the difference of the area, at the rate, that prevailed on the date of registration of the original sale deed. The 3rd respondent entertained a doubt, as to the classification of the documents. He felt that the documents dated 03-02-2009 in favour of the petitioner have the effect of conveying independent title in respect of the area, that was found to be, over and above, what was sold under the original sale deeds, and in that view of the matter, they deserve to be treated as sale deeds. He insists that the stamp duty and registration charges must be paid on the basis of the market value, that prevailed on the date of the execution of the deed of rectification.

(2.) Since the petitioner did not agree to pay any further stamp duty, the 3rd respondent referred the matter to the District Registrar, Hyderabad South, the 2nd respondent herein, for instructions as to the classification of the documents. The 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner and passed separate orders dated 24-05-2010, holding that the deficit of stamp duty and registration charges, together with penalty must be paid. Appeals under Section 56 of the India Stamp Act, 1899, were filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. The appeals were rejected, through orders dated 31-03-2011. Hence these three writ petitions.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the properties conveyed through the three sale deeds executed in the years 1992 and 1997 are covered by the boundaries mentioned therein, and the deeds of rectification had to be presented only to correct the extent, within the same boundaries. It is urged that the view taken by the respondents, that an independent sale has taken place; cannot be sustained in law.