RAMASINGHU BUCHANNA Vs. JOINT SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case arises out of a reference made by a learned single Judge Sri Justice P.S.Narayana on the question as to whether the appeal filed by the revision petitioners can be maintainable dehors the proviso to Section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the said provision is not valid.

(2.) The above aspect is pre-based upon a submission made on behalf of the petitioners herein to the effect that the proviso to Section 47-A of the Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act 8 of 1998 was struck down by this Court as arbitrary and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India in P.LAXMI DEVI vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P, AND OTHERS,2001 4 ALD 336. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that the proviso to Section 47-A (2) of the Act which runs on the same lines both in spirit and substance as that of the proviso to Section 47-A (1) of the Act, necessarily it has to be held as invalid following the very same principles in P. LAXMI DEVI's (1 supra) case. Since the appeal preferred by him was rejected on the ground of non-compliance of the condition imposed therein before the learned single Judge, the learned Government Pleader sought to place leliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in MOHD, ABDUL AZEEM ZAKEE AND OTHERS vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS, 2001 6 ALD 394. It is relevant to note the aforesaid two provisos which read as follows: "47-A Instruments of conveyance, etc. under-valued how to be dealt with:- (1) Where the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, (Central Act 16 of 1908), while registering any instruments of conveyance, exchange, gift, partition, settlement, release, agreement relating to construction, development or sale of any immovable property or power of attorney given for sale, development of immovable property, has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, or that the value arrived at by him as per the guidelines prepared or caused to be prepared by the Government from time to time has not been adopted by the parties, he may keep pending such instrument, and refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon: Provided that no reference shall be made by the registering officer unless an amount equal to fifty percent of the deficit duty arrived at by him is deposited by the party concerned. (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of making their representation and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and the duty as aforesaid: Provided that no appeal shall be preferred unless and until the difference, if any, in the amount of duty is paid by the person liable to pay the same, after deducting the amount already deposited by him: Provided further that where after the determination of market value by the Collector, if the stamp duty borne by the instrument is found sufficient, the amount deposited shall be returned to the person concerned without interest.

(3.) Considering the first proviso namely the proviso to Section 47-A (1) of the Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act 8 of 1998, a Division Bench in the afcesuid decision of P.Laxmi Devi's case (1st referred supra) held that the same is unconstitutional and accordingly struck dow and while holding so, it was observed that: