Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Mallikarjuna Kondapaneni vs The State Of Ap on 20 January, 2025
APHC010003982025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA [3328]
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTEITH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 298/2025
Between:
1. MALLIKARJUNA KONDAPANENI, S/O. SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED 39,
R/O. 1/2, GARUGUPALLI, MALEMARPURAM POST, CHITVEL,
CUDDAPAH, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. SWATHI KASTURI,, W/O. LOKANATH, AGED 34, R/O. 2-23-B/289,
FLAT NO. 301, KS KOVELA, BHAGYANAGAR HILLS, PHASE 3, NEAR
LITTLE FLOWER SCHOOL, SAMATHA NAGAR, KUKATPALLY,
TIRUMALAGIRI, HYDERABAD.
3. LOKESH KASTURI,, S/O. CHINNAIAH, AGED 44, R/O.
MANGALAPALLI VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLE, BOTIMEEDAPALLE,
CUDDAPAH, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND
REGISTRATION, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT
OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA.
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.
4. THE SUBREGISTRAR, TIRUPATHI RO, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
2
1. P SAI SURYA TEJA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners
and Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government for Stamps &
Registration appearing for all the Respondents
2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:
“It is prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be
pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus, declaring the action of the
4threspondent, Sub-Registrar, Tirupathi RO, in
directing the petitioners to pay the stamp duty
(@6.5%) and registration fee (@1%) on market
value of the property instead of the Value of the
Sale Certificate/Auction Value of
Rs.2,17,50,000/- as the same is contrary to law,
illegal, arbitrary and violative of law laid down by
this Hon‟ble Court and seeking a consequential
direction to the 4threspondent Sub-Registrar,
Tirupathi RO to receive, register and release the
Sale Certificate/Deed of Sale executed by the
Canara Bank in favour of the petitioners in
respect of the property bearing Shop Nos.001
Part, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 313A, 314
and 501 of Central Park Commercial Complex
together with undivided share of land
admeasuring 247.46 Sq Yards along with 35% of
Parking situated in Tirupathi Town, Municipal
13thward, Reddy and Reddy Colony area, No.29
Village Accounts, Tirupathi Urban
Mandal,Tiruapthi Sub-District, Sri Balaji
Registration District [hereinafter referred to as
the „subject property], without insisting payment
of stamp duty (@6.5%) and registration fee
(@1%) on market value of the property and by
accepting the stamp duty on the Value of the
3Sale Certificate which is Rs.2,17,50,000/- and to
pass such other and further orders.”
3. The facts, as stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition,
are that the Specialized Asset Recovery and Management Branch of Canara
Bank, Tirupati initiated the Proceedings under the provisions of Securitization
and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for recovery of the dues from the borrower and
issued e-Auction Notice for the sale of subject property on 05.12.2024
indicating that the e-Auction would be conducted on 23.12.2024; that on the
scheduled date of e-Auction i.e., on 23.12.2024, the Writ Petitioners herein
have participated and were declared as successful bidders for an amount of
Rs.2,17,50,000/- (upset price was fixed as Rs.2,17,00,000/-); that the Writ
Petitioners have paid the EMD as well as 25% of the sale amount of a sum of
Rs.54,37,500/- on the same date; that the Writ Petitioners have also complied
with all the other conditions and have thereafter paid the entire auction
amount to Canara Bank, Tirupati and have obtained the Sale Certificate on
30.12.2024; that the Writ Petitioners approached the Sub-Registrar, Tirupati
(Respondent No.4) for registration of the Sale Certificate; whereas, the
Respondent No.4 directed the Writ Petitioners to pay the stamp duty and
registration fee on the market value of the subject property; that the
Respondent No.4 had stated that the registration will not be permissible
unless the stamp duty and the registration fee is paid on the market value of
the property and not on the auction value; that the Respondent No.4 had also
4
issued Market Value Certificate of the subject property indicating that the total
value of the subject property is Rs.3,65,76,500/- (Three crores sixty five lakhs
seventy six thousand five hundred).
4. Having been aggrieved of the stand taken by the Respondent No.4 to
the effect that the registration would be permitted only if the Stamp Duty and
Registration Fee is paid on the market value as indicated in the Market Value
Certificate (i.e., ₹ 3,65,76,500/-) but not as per the Sale Certificate issued by
the Canara Bank (i.e., on ₹ 2,17,50,000/-), the present Writ Petition is filed.
5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that though the
law is well settled on this issue, it is legally untenable on the part of the
Respondent No.4 to insist for the payment of stamp duty and registration fee
on the market value instead of the amount fetched in the auction sale.
6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed reliance on a
Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court in 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.
6(a). A Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court was once again compelled to
deal with the batch of Writ Petitions involving the very same issue in Atkuri
Venkata Krishna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (W.P.No.24898 of
2024 and batch). The Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court in its Final Order
dated 06.12.2024 had also referred to a recent Memo issued by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh thereby, giving a directive to all the Officers in
5
the Department of Registration to comply with the law declared by this Hon‟ble
Court. The relevant portion of this Memo No.REV08-12022/11/2023-CCRA
SEC-IGRS dated 29.04.2024 is usefully extracted hereunder:
“2. After careful examination of the proposals of
the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration
and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh in the reference cited and in
compliance to the orders passed by the Hon‟ble High
Court, the Government hereby directed that the auction
value/value indicated in instruments to be taken into
consideration for the proposed pending documents in the
reference cited while determining the Deficit Stamp Duty
and Registration Fee on the sale certificate issued under
SARFEASI Act, 2002 instead of market value.
3. The Commissioner and Inspector General,
Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh is requested to
take necessary action in the matter accordingly.”
7. Having regard to the above facts, the following issue arises for
determination:
Issues:-
i. In cases where property is purchased in an auction sale
in recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI
Act, whether the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee is
payable on the value fetched in the auction sale or on
the market value as fixed by the Registrar?
ii. Whether there is an indispensable constitutional „duty‟
cast upon the executive to follow the law (ratio
decidendi) that is declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of India under Article 141 read with Article 144 of
the Constitution of India?
6
iii. What is the legal consequence if the Executive violates
a binding precedent?
Issue No.1:
In cases where property is purchased in an auction sale
in recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI
Act, whether the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee is
payable on the value fetched in the auction sale or on
the market value as fixed by the Registrar?
8. This Court has noticed that even though the law is well settled by the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the year 2009 itself in V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief
Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438 in
para Nos.16 to 18, the cases involving similar facts and circumstances, are
being brought before this Court almost on a regular basis. This Court, by
citing V.N. Devadoss‘s case, as a binding precedent, had already decided
several similar cases. A learned Single Judge has already decided cases on
similar facts by placing reliance on V.N. Devadoss‘s case. Even when the
State has preferred an Intra-Court Appeal, a Division Bench of this Hon‟ble
Court has also confirmed the Order of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as
the reliance was placed on the precedent rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
Article 141 of the Constitution stipulates that the law rendered/declared by the
Hon‟ble Apex Court would bind all the Subordinate Courts and the Executive
across the Country. It would be the incumbent duty on the part of the
Executive to keep track of the „march of law‟ and „follow the binding precedent‟
only to ensure that a citizen shall not be compelled to knock at the doors of
the Writ Court once again. Unfortunately, the Officers who are of the rank of
7
Sub-Registrar and Registrar, have been constantly violating this principle of
stare decisis. This doctrine mandates everyone including the subordinate
courts and the executive to follow the law declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court as a binding precedent without having to apply their discretion once
again. Once the law is settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, it would be the
incumbent duty, not only on the Subordinate Courts, but also the Executive
across the country to scrupulously follow the said dictum in all cases of similar
nature.
9. Article 300A is a constitutional right that guarantees to its citizens the
right to property. Sale and purchase of immovable and movable properties by
the citizens of the Country is a continuous process. In matters where
properties are brought for sale under various circumstances like an attached
property being sold for recovery of a debt in a Money Suit, or properties of the
defaulting borrowers are brought for sale by the respective lending institutions
or the properties brought for sale for recovery of statutory taxes/statutory
dues, the general rules and procedures with regard to Stamp Duty and
Registration Fee do not apply.
10. In Shanti Devi L Singh Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Ors :(1990) 3
SCC 605, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had explained the difference between the
process of registration and process of filing documents like Sale Certificate
issued by Tax Recovery Officers for the purchase of immovable property sold
in a Court auction. It is laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that a property
which is purchased in a Court auction, is not compulsorily registrable and that
8
such Sale Certificate shall merely be filed in Book No.1 in the Registrar‟s
Office.
11. In V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector
and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438, while dealing specifically with regard to the issue
which is framed in the present case i.e., whether the Stamp Duty and
Registration Fee should be paid on market value or on the value fetched on
the property in an auction sale, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has clearly and firmly
laid down the law to the effect that the Registration Authorities cannot demand
payment of Stamp Duty and Registration Fee based on market value. The
Hon‟ble Apex Court has explained the difference between market value and
amount fetched in an auction and also the process involved in bringing a
property for auction where the lending institution would obtain Market Value
Certificate before notifying the property for auction. Para Nos.16 to 18 of the
said Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court are usefully extracted hereunder:
“16. Market value is a changing concept. The
Explanation to sub-rule (5) makes the position clear that
(sic market) value would be such as would have fetched
or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of
execution of the instrument of conveyance. Here, the
property was offered for sale in the open market and bids
were invited. That being so, there is no question of any
intention to defraud the revenue or non-disclosure of the
correct price. The factual scenario as indicated above
goes to show that the properties were disposed of by the
orders of BIFR and AAIFR and that too on the basis of
value fixed by Assets Sales Committee. The view was
expressed by the Assets Sales Committee which
consisted of members such as representatives of IDBI,
debenture-holders, Government of West Bengal and
Special Director of BIFR. That being so, there is no
possibility of any undervaluation and therefore, Section
47-A of the Act has no application. It is not correct as
observed by the High Court that BIFR was only a
mediator.
9
17. Sale has been defined under Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short “the TP Act“).
Although the Act has not included the definition of sale,
Section 2(10) of the Act defines “conveyance” as including
a conveyance on sale, every instrument and every decree
or final order of any civil court by which property whether
immovable or movable or any estate or interest in any
property is transferred to, or vested in or declared to be of
any other person, inter vivos, and which is not otherwise
specifically provided for by Schedule I or Schedule 1-A, as
the case may be.
18. On the facts of the case it cannot be said that
Section 47-A has any application because there is no
scope for entertaining a doubt that there was any
undervaluation. That being so, the High Court’s order is
clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The registration
shall be done at the price disclosed in the document of
conveyance. There is no scope for exercising power
under Section 47-A of the Act as there is no basis for even
entertaining a belief that the market value of the property
which is the subject-matter of conveyance has not been
truly set forth with a view to fraudulently evadepayment of
proper stamp duty.”
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 are 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
10
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.1 is
answered by this Court holding that the Respondent Authorities (Department
of Registration and Stamps) shall collect Stamp Duty and Court Fee on the
value of the property as mentioned in the Sale Certificate in the present case.
11
Issue No.2:
Whether there is an indispensable constitutional „duty‟
cast upon the executive to follow the law (ratio
decidendi) that is declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of India under Article 141 read with Article 144 of
the Constitution of India?
16. The Article 141 of Constitution of India reads as under:
“141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on
all courts – The law declared by the Supreme Court shall
be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”
17. The Article 144 of Constitution of India reads as under:
“Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the
Supreme Court – All authorities, civil and judicial, in the
territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.”
18. The Article 141 r/w 144 would lead to a categorical conclusion that the
law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court binds not only the Courts within the
territory of India but would also bind all the authorities, civil and judicial in the
territory of India and all the authorities shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.
This goes without saying that the law declared by the Supreme Court, which is
final by its very nature, binds the executive and the executive cannot take a
view different from the law that is laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
Therefore the law declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in V.N. Devadoss
Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC
438 shall be adhered to by the executive namely the Department of
Registration in the present case. They cannot insist on the auction purchaser
to pay Stamp Duty and Registration Charges on the market value in respect of
a property which has been purchased in an auction sale, if such auction is
12
held by the Court or the Financer under the SARFAESI Act or by a Tax
Recovery Officer.
19. The binding nature of the law declared by the Supreme Court under
Article 141 read with Article 144 of the Constitution of India has been spelt out
by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.16 in E.T.Sunup Vs.
C.A.N.S.S.Employees Association and Another: (2004) 8 SCC 683, which
reads as under:
“16. It has become a tendency with the government
officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of
court and try to take recourse to one justification or other.
This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders
of the Court. This tendency of undermining the Court’s
order cannot be countenanced. This Court time and again
has emphasised that in a democracy the role of the court
cannot be subservient to administrative fiat. The executive
and legislature have to work within the constitutional
framework and the judiciary has been given the role of
watchdog to keep the legislature and executive within
check. In the present case, we fail to understand the
counter filed by the appellant before the Court. On one
hand they say that all the cases of GPF have been
processed and on the other hand they are not prepared to
revoke the administrative order. This only shows a
deliberate attempt on the part of the bureaucracy to
circumvent the order of the Court and stick to their stand.
This is clear violation of the Court’s order and the
appellant is guilty of flouting the Court’s order.”
Issue No.3:
What is the legal consequence if the Executive violates
a binding precedent?
20. Before parting with this case, having regard to the frequent of
recurrence of a situation of the present nature where the executive is
frequently demanding payment of Stamp Duty and Registration Fee based on
the market value in cases where the property has been purchased in an
13
auction sale held either by the Court or by the Financer under the SARFAESI
Act or by a Tax Recovery Officer, this Court has noticed that there is a flood of
litigation in respect of the present issues which are involved. This Court is
coming across such cases almost on a daily basis. When the law has been
clearly laid down, there is a duty cast upon the executive to follow the said law
for the reason that if the said law is not followed, it compels the aggrieved
party to invoke the jurisdiction of the Writ Court which is plainly avoidable.
When once the law has attained finality by virtue of its declaration by the
Hon‟ble Apex Court under Article 141, the executive shall dutifully abide by
such law as per Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The Principle of „stare
decisis’ is a jurisprudential concept which is founded to ensure avoidance of
multiplicity of litigation by compelling everyone to follow the precedent. When
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declares the law, the executive „shall‟ implement
the said law without any deviation or dilution or by raising any objection. The
executive can only look upon the „precedent‟ which is laid down by the Apex
Court which is deemed to have attained finality and simply follow it. Taking a
different view would only render misery to the common man compelling him to
invoke the jurisdiction of the Writ Court which is plainly avoidable.
21. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, in Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs. Union of
India: (2012) 1 SCC 273, while exercising the Contempt jurisdiction, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court has laid down the inescapable mandamus that is cast
upon the executive and as an inescapable duty to comply with the law
14
declared b the Hon‟ble Apex Court. In Paragraph No.20 of the said judgment,
the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held as under:
“20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are
primarily concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor
is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of the orders of
the court, even to constitute a civil contempt. Every party
to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to
obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and
substance. Every person is required to respect and obey
the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution.
The government departments are no exception to it. The
departments or instrumentalities of the State must act
expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders
postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to.
Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in
compliance with the orders of the court, least that is
expected of the government department or its
functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time
or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither
obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court
making appropriate prayers for extension of time or
variation of order, the only possible inference in law is that
such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other
words, it is intentionally not carrying out the orders of the
court. Flagrant violation of the court’s orders would reflect
the attitude of the party concerned to undermine the
authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of
justice.”
22. In State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari : (1961) 1 SCR 728, the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the said Judgment held at para 31 as
under:
“34. Before concluding, we consider it proper to
draw attention to one aspect of the case. It is of the
essence of the rule of law that every authority within the
State including the executive Government should consider
itself bound by and obey the Law. It is fundamental to the
system of polity that India has adopted and which is
embodied in the Constitution that the Courts of the land
are vested with the powers of interpreting the law and of
applying it to the facts of the cases which are properly
brought before them. If any party to the proceedings
considers that any Court has committed any error, in the
15understanding of the law or in its application, resort must
be had to such review or appeals as the law provides.
When once an order has been passed which the Court
has jurisdiction to pass, it is the duty of all persons
bound by it to obey the order so long as it stands, and
it would tend to the subversion of orderly
administration and civil Government, if parties could
disobey orders with impunity. If such is the position
as regard private parties, the duty to obey is all the
more imperative in the case of Governmental
authorities, otherwise there would be a conflict
between one branch of the State polity viz. the
executive and another branch — the Judicial. If
disobedience could go unchecked, it would result in
orders of Courts ceasing to have any meaning and
judicial power itself becoming a mockery. When the
State Government obeys a law, or gives effect to an
order of a Court passed against it, it is not doing
anything which detracts from its dignity, but rather,
invests the law and the Courts with the dignity
which are their due, which enhances the prestige
of the executive Government itself, in a
democratic set-up ……………………………………….”
23. In Shri Baradakanta Mishra Ex-Commissioner of Endowments Vs.
Shri Bhimsen Dixit : 1973 1 SCC 446, the Hon‟ble Apex Court at para 15 of
the said Judgment had held as under:
“15. The conduct of the appellant in not following
the previous decision of the High Court is calculated to
create confusion in the administration of law. It will
undermine respect for law laid down by the High Court
and impair the constitutional authority of the High Court.
His conduct is therefore comprehended by the principles
underlying the law of contempt. The analogy of the inferior
court’s disobedience to the specific order of a superior
court also suggests that his conduct falls within the
purview of the law of contempt. Just as the disobedience
to a specific order of the Court undermines the authority
and dignity of the court in a particular case, similarly the
deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the law
laid down in the previous decision undermines the
constitutional authority and respect of the High Court.
Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an
individual case and on a limited number of persons, the
latter conduct has a much wider and more disastrous
16impact. It is calculated not only to undermine the
constitutional authority and respect of the High Court,
generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule of Law and
engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the
administration of law.”
24. In Priya Gupta Vs. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare : 2013 11
SCC 404, the Hon‟ble Apex Court, had the occasion to explain the
consequences of willful disobedience of the Orders of the Court by the
Executive. Para Nos.12 & 13 of the said Judgment are usefully extracted
hereunder:
“12. The government departments are no exception to the
consequences of wilful disobedience of the orders of the
Court. Violation of the orders of the Court would be its
disobedience and would invite action in accordance with
law. The orders passed by this Court are the law of the
land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. No
court or tribunal and for that matter any other authority can
ignore the law stated by this Court. Such obedience would
also be conducive to their smooth working, otherwise
there would be confusion in the administration of law and
the respect for law would irretrievably suffer. There can be
no hesitation in holding that the law declared by the higher
court in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals
under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it. This
Court also expressed the view that it had become
necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional
ethos and breach of discipline have a grave impact on the
credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance
litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and
certainty are important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence
developed in this country, as discipline is sine qua non for
effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If
the Courts command others to act in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of
law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the
constitutional principle by those who are required to lay
down the law. (Ref. East India Commercial Co.
Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962 SC 1893]
and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1 :
(2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .) (SCC p. 57, paras 90-91)
17
13. These very principles have to be strictly
adhered to by the executive and instrumentalities of the
State. It is expected that none of these institutions should
fall out of line with the requirements of the standard of
discipline in order to maintain the dignity of institution and
ensure proper administration of justice.”
25. In the above premise, this Writ Petition is allowed. The Official
Respondent No.4 is directed to register the Sale Certificate of the Writ
Petitioners in accordance with law by fixing Stamp Duty and Registration Fee
on the value shown in the Sale Certificate i.e., Rs.2,17,50,000/-. No order as
to costs.
Directions:
26. Since this Court has been encountering a flood of cases of this nature,
this Court is of the view that these instances are occurring on account of
ignorance of law by the Officers who are of the rank of Sub-Registrars and
Registrars. This anomaly can be cured by enlightening the concerned Officials
about the development and „march of law‟ in the relevant subject. It is the
opinion of this Court that this requirement can be met by organizing periodical
workshops or training sessions to the concerned Officials for keeping them
abreast of the changes occurring in the law from time to time.
27. For achieving the above objective it would be necessary to firstly
formulate a „Legal-Module‟ which incorporates the necessary case-law dealing
with the subject of Registration and holding symposiums or workshops or
training sessions in any form for all the Officers who are involved in the
Registration of Instruments by making them aware of the contents of such
module. As the current era is earmarked by the explosion of „Information-
18
Technology‟, the training sessions can be conducted effortlessly through
Online classes (by video-conferencing). One can easily avoid wastage of time
and resources by conducting Online classes for the Officers, while achieving
the desired results effectively and efficiently.
28. In order to give effect to the above observations, there shall be a
direction to the Principal Secretary, Revenue to prepare a „Legal-Module‟ in
consultation with the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra
Pradesh and impart the contents of such „module‟ to all the Officers involved in
the Department of Registration in the State in the manner indicated above.
There shall be a further direction to prepare a „Legal-Module‟ within four
weeks from the date of uploading of this Order. Thereafter, the training
sessions shall be conducted.
29. Post after eight weeks to enable the Official Respondents to submit a
Report as regards the progress in implementing the above directions.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 20.01.2025
Vns/Vts
[ad_1]
Source link