RAJESH D SHAH Vs. JOINT SUB REGISTRAR HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common issue that arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is, whether the impugned proceedings in Lr. Nos. 2002/OB/99 and 2001/0B/99 dated 23-6-1999 of the first respondent requesting the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 1,61,460.00 and 1,37,905/- respectively towards deficit stamp duty and deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fees, failing which the documents will be referred to the Collector under Section 48 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act') for taking action under the Revenue Recovery Act is valid or not.

(2.) In both in writ petitions the parties and cause of action is common except variation in the amounts and the extents of land. Since counters have been filed in both the writ petitions, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The facts leading to filing of the writ petitions in brief are that : The petitioners purchased an extent of 184 and 159 sq. yards of land respectively including a house thereon bearing Municipal No. 3-3-71 situated at Kutbiguda, Hyderabad. After purchasing the lands for a valuable consideration the documents were presented before the first respondent for registration along with Annexure-1A statement, in which the market value of the buildings were estimated at Rs. 3 lakhs each being the value of the total sale consideration of the sale deed. After such presentation of the documents the first respondent conducted spot inspection of the properties and valued the market value at Rs. 6,90,500.00 and 6,04,000/- respectively and the same was recorded in Annexure-1B statement. However, the petitioners accepted the same in order to get it registered quickly and to obviate any complications in future. The required amounts were paid in the month of October 1996 itself and the same was accepted and acknowledged by the first respondent. Since there was a delay in registration and returning of the documents, they approached the office of the first respondent and they were assured that the documents would be returned shortly. While so, the petitioners received the impugned proceedings in Lr. Nos. 2002/0B/99 and 2001/0B/99 dated 23-6-1999 respectively, wherein it was stated by the first respondent that the documents presented for registration were lying for want of deficit stamp duty after indicating quantified amounts as deficit stamp duty. It was further stated therein that the matter would be referred to the Collector under Section 48 of the Act for taking action under Revenue Recovery Act, which, according to the petitioners, are illegal and invalid. Hence, the present writ petitions.