KOTHA KOTA RAMPRASAD Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR SRIKAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are vendees of various house properties situated at Sompeta, Srikakulam District and they got SaleDeeds registered as document Nos.485 of 1995 dated 12-12-1994,416ofl995dated 1-2-1995,462 of 1995 dated 28-3-1995 and 486 of 1995 dated 22-12-1995 respectively. As the consideration shown in the documents did not confirm to the value as per the Basic Value Register, the second respondent demanded that they should pay the stamp duty on the basis of basic value register and accordingly, they have paid the stamp duty and got the documents registered. Third petitioner also paid Rs.3,000/- more on 22-4-1995 towards deficit stamp duty. While so, first respondent issued demand notice to petitioners 1 to 4 in Memo No. 604/95/G4 dated 26-6-1995 directing them to pay Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively towards the deficit stampon or before 30-6-1995 failing which action imposing 10 times the amount as penalty will be taken under Sections 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act. Aggrieved by the above demand notices, the petitioners filed th is writ petition, seeking a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the said notices and action of respondent under Section 8 of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, as illegal and with out jurisdiction.

(2.) It is in the affidavit of the first petitioner that what was shown as market value of the properties originally in all the documents, namely Rs.86,000/-, Rs.65,000/-, Rs.75,000/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively is the true consideration and that cannot be objected to by saying that the above shown market value is not in accordance with Basic Value Register. Accord ing to R-2 the market value ought to have been Rs. 1,50,000/-, 1,80,000/-, 1,13,000/- and Rs. 1,65,000/- respectively and therefore R-2 demanded that they should pay the deficit stamp duty and accordingly the petitioners paid the deficit stamp duty as per the market value based on the basic value register and got all the four documents released. R-l is said to have made spot checks of the documents unilaterally and without any notice to them and without serving any provisional demand notice finally determined that the four documents are undervalued and found the deficit stamp duty to be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively and on that basis the impugned demand notices have been issued. Therefore, the petitioners issued a legal notice indicating that R-l has no jurisdiction to issue such demand notices and that it is the Collector who had the power to issue such notices and therefore, he was requested not to proceed further. As it would be contrary to Sections 41 and 41 -A of the Stamp Act and it is the Collector who has jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice and cause an enquiry. It is reiterated that they are entitled to a show cause notice even under the principles of natural justice. Hence, the writ petition. The respondents resisted the writ petition by filing the counter affidavit of R-l. The material averments of the petitioners affidavit are denied. The material particulars relating to four documents that were registered by R-2 are however admitted. It is then averred that the properties conveyed under these documents have substantial commercial importance being situated in the nerve centre of commercial activity in Sompeta Town which lies between Ichapuram and Kashibugga. Hence, the property in such a location has the highest value, but the value shown in the documents is very less and falls much below the minimum floor value even as per the Basic Value Register. It is added that only average valuation is reflected by the Basic Value Register. It is specifically averred thatR-1 is competent and empowered by virtue of authorisation of the then Chief Controlling Authority (Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records) and chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to act as Collector under Section 41 -A in reference U3/1509/86 Dated 17-10-1987. Thus indicatinghis position under the provisions of the Stamp Act, he averred further that in the course of routine super checks on 26-4-1995, it was revealed that abnormally low rental values were quoted by parties with an intent to deflate the market value and that has affected the chargeabi 1 ity of Stamp Duty. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the petitioners to make good the loss caused to the State. Thereafter a notice calling for the payment of deficit Stamp Duty and proposing the levey of 10 times penalty is served on all the petitioners individually, but it was by no means a final demand notice and it was only a proposal which could have been countered by filing any documentary evidence and adducing concrete proof of their actions. It is asserted that the parties were provided with an opportunity of being heard when notices indicating quantum of deficit Stamp Duty were served on them and they were free to file their objections and plead for either complete waiver or suitable reduction by proving the authenticity of the facts disclosed by them by means of documentary evidence or other form of evidence. Adverting to the notice issued by the petitioner advocate, it is stated that the petitioners have issued legal notices that are indecently addressed', that there is no objection for the appearance of the legal counsel but decorum and decency prescribe that legal notices of the kind could have been avoided. It is finally reiterated that the deficit Stamp Duty demanded is just, legal and consistent with the high value of the property under transfer and all relevant factors, circumstances and situations have been taken into consideration before the determination of the deficit stamp duty and that the petitioners were given ample opportunity to presenttheircase. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit.

(3.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned demand notice is vitiated by lack ofjurisdiction of the issuing authority R-1.