Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Manthena Subba Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2025
1
APHC010312802024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NOs: 16025 & 16026 OF 2024
Between:
1. GADDE SANDHYA, W/O.G.VIJAYA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.FLAT NO-108,
NO BLOCK NO--2, SIGMA
CENTRAL, TARA NAGAR,NEAR POCHAMMA TEMPLE,
SERILINGAMPALLI, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, HYDERABAD-
HYDERABAD
500019, TELANGANA
NGANA STATE.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE(STAMPS AND
REGISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI
2. THE SUBREGISTRAR, NALLAPADU, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
STRESSED I ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, 3RD FLOOH
UPSTAIRS OF KFC, SURYA PRAKASH SQUARE, GURUNANAK
ROAD, VIJAYAWADA.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1 VINODIN RUTH MADAPALLI
.
2
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1 S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY
.
2 GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
.
WRIT PETITION NO: 16026 OF 2024
Between:
1. MANTHENA SUBBA RAJU, S/O.SRI.M.KRISHNAM RAJU, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.9-104, ALAKAPURAM,
ALLURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN 522314. ANDHRA PRADESH…PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE(STAMPS AND
REGISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI
2. THE SUBREGISTRAR, NALLAPADU, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, 3RD FLOOR.
UPSTAIRS OF KLC, SURYA PRAKASH SQUARE, GURUNANAK
ROAD, VIJAYAWADA..
…RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1 VINODIN RUTH MADAPALLI
.
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1 S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY
.
2 GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
.
3
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:
Heard Ms. M. Vinodin Ruth, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners
and Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Stamps & Registration.
2. The facts in both the cases are identical. Therefore, with the consent of
the parties, both the cases are being disposed of by this Common Order.
3. The facts in this case, in a nutshell, are that:
The State Bank of India (Respondent No.3) had issued a newspaper
publication seeking to hold a public auction to sell two plots of same the
dimensions i.e., to an extent of 1016.40 Square Yards of land situated in
Turakapalem Grama Panchayat area, Nallapadu Sub-District, Guntur District
bearing D.No.515-C-1. The Respondent No.3 has fixed a reserve price of
Rs.55,00,000/-. The mode of auction is by e-auction.
4, The auction was conducted on 29.02.2024, in which, the Writ
Petitioners stood as highest bidders for an amount of Rs.55,10,000/-.
5. The Writ Petitioners have paid the entire sale consideration to the State
Bank of India (Respondent No.3). The State Bank of India (Respondent No.3)
has issued ‘Possession Certificate’ to the subject property and handed over
the subject property to the Writ Petitioners along with the ‘Sale Certificates’ on
22.03.2024.
4
6. On 27.03.2024, the Writ Petitioners and the State Bank of India
(Respondent No.3) has approached the Sub-Registrar, Nallapadu, Guntur
District (Respondent No.2) for registration of the Sale Certificates dated
22.03.2024. The Sub-Registrar, Nallapadu, Guntur District (Respondent
No.2) had directed the Writ Petitioners to pay Stamp Duty and Registration
Fee on market value which is mentioned in the Market Value Register.
Request to register the Sale Certificates on the basis of the auction amount of
₹.55,10,000/- was rejected by the Sub-Registrar, Nallapadu, Guntur District
(Respondent No.2) and made it clear that unless the Writ Petitioners pays the
Stamp Duty on the market value as reflected in the Market Value Register, the
registration of the Sale Certificates dated 22.03.2024 cannot be entertained.
7. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed reliance on the Judg-
ment of this Court in Mallikarjuna Kondapaneni and Others Vs. State of
A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary and Others; 2025 SCC OnLine AP
332. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has taken this Court through the re-
levant paragraphs which are usefully extracted hereunder:
“12. As the law has been clearly laid down in V.N.
Devadoss’s case (supra), Single Benches of this
Court, following the said case as a precedent, have
consistently allowed several Writ Petitions brought
by the successful auction purchasers. The Intra-
Court Appeals filed by the State were dismissed
thereby confirming the Orders of the Single
Benches since the said Orders were passed by
placing reliance on V.N. Devadoss’s case. There
are already several reported Judgments on the very
same issue in the law journals.
13. This discussion is being made by this Court out
of sheer concern that such well settled legal issues
5are again being raked-up by the Executive, again
and again compelling the citizens to approach this
Court. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Principal Secretary and Ors. Vs.
Marvel Financial Services Ltd., rep. by its
Director Mr. P. Srinivas Chowdary and Anr. :
2022 SCC Online AP 3328, the Division Bench of
this Hon’ble Court, having discussed elaborately,
had upheld the Order passed by the learned Single
Judge, directing the Registration Authorities to
collect the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee only
on the value that is fetched in the auction sale with
a clear caveat that the Official Respondents cannot
charge Stamp Duty and Registration Fee on the
market value.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, as recently as in
the year 2024, in State of Punjab and Anr. Vs.
Ferrous Alloy Forgings Private Limited and Ors
: 2024 SCC Online SC 3372,in para 20 of the said
Judgment, has held as under:
“20. The position of law discussed above
makes it clear that sale certificate issued
by the authorised officer is not
compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under
Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself
is sufficient when a copy of the sale
certificate is forwarded by the authorised
officer to the registering authority.
However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23
respectively of the first schedule to the
Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that
when the auction purchaser presents the
original sale certificate for registration, it
would attract stamp duty in accordance
with the said Articles. As long as the sale
certificate remains as it is, it is not
compulsorily registrable. It is only when
the auction purchaser uses the certificate
for some other purpose that the
requirement of payment of stamp duty,
etc. would arise.”
15. After having considered the judgments
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the
Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, the Issue
No.1is answered by this Court holding that the
Respondent Authorities (Department of Registration
and Stamps) shall collect Stamp Duty and Court
6
Fee on the value of the property as mentioned in
the Sale Certificate in the present case.”
8. Several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the judgments
rendered by the Ld. Single Judges of this Court and the Division Bench of this
Court have been referred to in the above cited judgment.
9. In this regard, the law is absolutely clear and well settled that the
Registration Authorities cannot insist on payment of Stamp Duty and
Registration Fee basing on the value of the property as indicated in the Market
Value Register. The Sub-Registrar has no other option, but to register the
Sale Certificates by fixing the Stamp Duty based on the successful bid price
which is fetched in the auction, as the same reflects the true market value as
per the settled law.
10. In the above premise, both the Writ Petitions stand allowed. The Sub-
Registrar, Nallapadu, Guntur District (Respondent No.2) is directed to receive
the Sale Certificates and process the same by assessing the Stamp Duty
basing on the successful bid price which is fetched in the auction, which is
Rs.55,10,000/- in the present Writ Petitions and inform the same to the Writ
Petitioners within two weeks from today. No order as to costs.
11. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
_________________________________
GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 30.04.2025
Mnr/JKS
[ad_1]
Source link