M HARI NARAYANA ALIAS HARI BABU Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY AND COMMSSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed questioning the validity of the order dated 14th of December 2005 passed in Proceedings No. G1/85/2003 by the District Registrar of Assurances, kadapa and order dated 2nd of August 2007 passed in Proceedings No. CCRA/19798/2005 by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner and Inspector General of registration and Stamps, Hyderabad. Few necessary facts in brief are as follows :

(2.) ONE Smt. P. Swaroopa Rani was the owner of a theatre which was being run in the name of 'sri Venkateswara Picture Palace', situated in Survey No. 72/1 of Nagarajupalli village in 14th Ward in Kadapa Municipal limits. Petitioner has entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the said theatre for a total consideration of Rs. 64,00,000. 00. The agreement was executed on 28th of March 2001 on Rs. 100/- Non-judicial stamp paper. In terms of the above agreement, a part consideration amount was paid and possession was to be handed over by the owner to the petitioner-purchaser on receiving the full sale consideration amount of rs. 64,00,000. 00. It is alleged that in spite of readiness by the petitioner to pay the balance consideration amount and to take possession of the property, the owner failed to perform the contract. Therefore, the petitioner herein filed a suit in O. S. No. 44 of 2002 on the file of the District Judge, Kadapa, seeking specific performance of the agreement. In the said suit, when the petitioner herein wanted to exhibit the agreement of sale dated 28th of march 2001, there was an objection from the owner of the theatre, who is defendant in the suit, on the ground that same is not admissible in evidence asmuch as it was under-stamped and the stamp duty paid was not in accordance with the provisions of the indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act' ). On such an objection, the learned District judge, Kadapa has referred the document in i. A. No. 45 of 2003 for impounding and collection of stamp duty and penalty as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. On such reference, initially the district Registrar, Kadapa has passed orders dated 11/7/2003 in Proceedings No. G1/85/ 2003, determining the deficit stamp duty of rs. 3,72,500. 00 and a penalty equivalent to one time of the deficit stamp duty i. e. Rs. 3,72,500. 00 and demanded totally an amount of Rs. 7,45,000. 00. The said order was questioned before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has set aside the same on the ground that the District Registrar has passed orders dated 11/7/2003 without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and remitted the matter to the primary authority-District Registrar, Kadapa for fresh consideration. After remand, the 2nd respondent-District Registrar has passed the impugned order dated 14/12/2005 by recording a finding that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the agreement of sale dated 28/3/2001 was Rs. 74,52,000. 00 and confirmed the deficit stamp duty and penalty at Rs. 7,45,000. 00.

(3.) IT was the case of the petitioner before the primary authority that inasmuch as the document is a simple agreement of sale, it falls within the purview of Article 6 (C) of schedule I-A of the Act and as such, the stamp duty paid was sufficient and there is no deficit stamp duty at all. But however, the primary authority, by recording a finding that the agreement of sale dated 28. 03. 2001 will fall within the purview of Article 6 (B) of schedule I-A of the Act for the purpose of chargeability of stamp duty, rejected the plea of the petitioner. As against the said orders, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent-Chief Controlling Revenue authority purportedly under Section 56 (1) of the Act. The said authority, by further impugned order dated 2nd of August 2007 in proceedings No. CCRA/19798/2005, while setting aside the order dated 14. 12. 2005, has issued directions to the District Registrar i. e. respondent No. 2 herein to make a fresh order treating the case under Article 47-A of schedule I-A of the Act. During the pendency of the proceedings before the primary authority and revisional authority, on the ground that they are not disposing of the matters, the petitioner earlier approached this court in W. P. No. 13813 of 2004. But asmuch as final orders are now passed and are subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, no further details need to be mentioned about the earlier writ petition. The revisional authority i. e. 1st respondent herein has recorded a finding that asmuch as pursuant to agreement of sale dated 28th of March 2001 possession was delivered to the petitioner by paying further amount under a receipt dated 18th of September 2002, as such, the said agreement has to be treated as a sale within the meaning of Explanation 1 to Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Act. Though the primary authority has arrived at the deficit stamp duty and levied penalty on the ground that stamp duty was to be paid under Article 6 (B) of the Act, but however, the revisional authority in the revision filed by the petitioner, by recording a finding that the stamp duty has to be collected under Explanation 1 to Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Act, has set aside the order of the primary authority dated 14. 12. 2005 and ordered to make a fresh order treating the case under Explanation 1 to Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Act.