Telangana High Court
Maram Badra Reddy And Ano vs Dist. Registrar, Stamps And … on 9 June, 2025
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ W.P.No.1341 of 2010
% 09.06.2025
# Between:
Maram Badra Reddy, S/o.Sri Papi Reddy, (died)
aged about 66 years, Occ: Retired Additional
Superintendent of Police, R/o.H.No.6-2-252,
Srinagar Colony, Nalgonda town,
Nalgonda District and others
Petitioners
VERSUS
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Registration and Stamps Department,
Rep. by its District Registrar,
Nalgonda District.
Respondent
! Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sri G. Pedda Babu,
learned senior counsel
representing Ms.T. Swetha
learned counsel for petitioners
^Counsel for the respondent(s):
Learned Government Pleader
for Stamps and Registration
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1) AIR 1978 851-(1978) 1 SCC 405
2) MANU/AP/0002/1995
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.1341 of 2010
ORDER:
Questioning the proceedings in Memo No.CC/P.F./
2009 dated 02.01.2009 issued by the District Registrar,
Nalgonda, whereby the writ petitioners were called upon
to pay the deficit stamp duty, the present Writ Petition is
filed.
2. Heard Sri G. Pedda Babu, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Ms.T. Swetha, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and
Registration appearing for respondent. Perused the
record.
3. Facts in brief as stated in the Writ Petition are as
follows:
Petitioner No.1 submits that he has entered into a
registered agreement of sale – cum – General Power of
Attorney dated 19.11.2003 registered as document
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 20103
No.7139/2003, with his owners M/s.Kethireddy Rama
Narsimha Reddy and others, in respect of house bearing
Municipal Nos.5-4-41, 5-4-42, 5-4-43, 5-4-44, 5-4-46,
5-4-47 and 5-4-48 for an extent of 700 Sq. yards, situated
at Rashtrapathi Road, Nalgonda Town. The 2nd Petitioner
also entered into an Agreement of Sale – cum -General
Power of Attorney dated 19-11-2003 registered as
document No.7140/2003 with the said owners in respect
of house bearing M.No.5-4-45, admeasuring 1250 sq.
yards and M.No.5-4-66 and 5-4-66/A, admeasuring 100
Sq. yards after paying the necessary stamp duty and
registration charges. Thereafter, the petitioners as the
agreement holders and General Power of Attorney holders
acting on behalf of the owners jointly developed and sold
the built up area to themselves and to third parties in
respect of portions thereof. It is further submitted that
the agents are also the agreement holders and having
agreed to pay the sale consideration to the original
owners, the petitioners were conferred with the powers to
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 20104
sell besides other powers by virtue of the registered
instrument referred above and the GPAs executed in
favour of the petitioners are coupled with interest.
4. It is further submitted that the Respondent issued
Proforma-l in terms of para No.III (8) of C & I.G. (R&S) Cir.
Memo No.MV6/3391/2004 dated 17.09.2009 stating that
during the course of spot inspection of the property dealt
within the document registered as document Nos.6029,
6401, 6402, 6403, 6404 and 2318 of 2009, certain
variations were noticed and demanded the petitioners to
explain various grounds raised therein.
5. It is further submitted that the documents were
registered in accordance with the market value certificate
issued by the respondent, which relates to the property
on the main road and the same valuation was adopted for
the same portion of the property vide door bearing No.5-
4-51 which is also connected by a road.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
5
6. It is further submitted that petitioners have also
sent reply dated 08.10.2009 to the said notice. However,
the Respondent without considering the same passed the
impugned order dated 02.01.2009 and dispatched on
02.01.2010 demanding payment of Rs.14,91,460/- and
granted time till 27-01-2010. The petitioners submits that
the said notice (proforma) is bad as the alleged spot
inspection was not at all made as per Circular Memo
No.MV2/22407/98 dated 22.01.1999 and as such is
liable to be set aside and the present Writ Petition is filed
apprehending that the respondent is likely to prosecute
the petitioners in terms of Sections 27 and 64 of Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 82 of Indian Registration
Act, 1908 and the rules framed there under. It is further
submitted that in the impugned proceedings, respondent
had stated that the petitioners do not have pre-existing
right over the subject property admeasuring 2050 Sq.
yards. However, both the petitioners have developed the
property. The memo further states that before developing
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
6
the property, the petitioners ought to have entered into
development agreement and duty has to be charged as
per Article 6 (B) of the Indian Stamp Act.
7. It is the further case of the petitioners that as they
are the purchasers/ GPA holders had developed the
property but the Respondent failed to appreciate the fact
that there is no document executed between the
petitioners and therefore the question of registering the
document does not arise and that they have every right to
develop the property and there is no bar under any of the
statute from developing the said property and the
impugned notice was issued at belated stage and that the
petitioners have already paid the stamp duty and
registration charges as demanded by the Respondent at
the time of registration of the sale deeds vide document
Nos.7139 and 7140 of 2003 dated 19.11.2003 and no
amount is due and payable. Therefore, issuance of
impugned order at a belated stage is un-warranted.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
7
8. This Court granted interim order on 29.01.2010 for
a period of four weeks and then it was extended until
further orders on 17.02.2010.
9. The District Registrar, Nalgonda filed counter stating
that the writ petitioners were called upon to pay the
deficit Stamp duty. It is submitted that originally the land
in question belonged to Mr.Kethireddy Rama Narsimha
Reddy and 5 others who entered into an agreement of sale
– cum – General Power of Attorney on 19.11.2003 in
favour of the 2nd petitioner and the same was registered
as document bearing No.7139 of 2003 before the District
Registrar, Nalgonda and as per the terms of the said
document, all powers to sell and develop the land were
conferred. Similarly, another document styled as
agreement of sale – cum – General Power of Attorney was
executed by Mr.Kethireddy Narimha Reddy and 5 others
in favour of the 1st petitioner to an extent of 1350 Sq.
yards vide registered deed bearing document No.7140 of
2003 dated 19.11.2003.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
8
10. Thereafter the 2nd petitioner entered into an
unregistered development agreement dated 02.08.2004 in
favour of M/s.Sri Rama Commercial Complex a
proprietary concern of which the 1st petitioner is a
Proprietor and as per the recitals in the said document,
the 1st petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of
the land measuring 700 Sq. yards under a document
styled as sale-cum-GPA bearing document No.7139 of
2003. It is further submitted that the very execution of
the document by the 1st petitioner in his individual name
itself is misleading and that the very registration of the
agreement of sale – cum – General Power of Attorney
Nos.7139 and 7140 of 2003 was done is without
disclosing the true facts of the property which was
identified at the time of spot inspection. It is further
submitted that at the time of registration, it was noticed
that the property was facing the Rashtrapati road which
is a prime locality and the value is Rs.11,000/- per
Square Yard and by misrepresentation, the writ
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
9
petitioners have got the documents registered by showing
the value as Rs.7000/- per Sq. Yard.
11. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners
having obtained only agreements of sale – cum – power of
attorney have constructed a commercial complex with a
total area of 9372 Sq. feet and thereafter as per the
recitals in the said sale deeds, the writ petitioners have
entered into a partnership firm under registration No.79
of 2004 dated 11.10.2004 with effect from 01.11.2003
and under the guise of the unregistered development
agreement, the 1st petitioner who had only an agreement
with power of attorney for only 700 Sq. Yards, clubbed
the same with the land measuring 1350 Sq. Yards
belonging to the 2nd petitioner and constructed the
commercial complex. It is further submitted that as per
the provisions of Article 6 (B) of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899, the development agreement is liable for Stamp duty
and registerable Under Section 17 of the Registration Act
and the petitioners have suppressed all the facts and
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
10
have constructed the said complex on the basis of
documents which do not confer any right upon them. It is
further submitted that at the time of spot inspection
made on 03.09.2009, the respondent authorities noticed
that the land is facing the main road and in view of
variations, the present impugned memo was issued and
the notice was issued within the powers conferred under
Sections 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as
there was suppression of material facts leading to evasion
of stamp duty and putting the State to loss and
eventually pray to dismiss the Writ Petition.
12. During pendency of the present Writ Petition the 1st
petitioner died on 04.02.2012 and vide order dated
30.07.2014 passed by this Court his LRs i.e., petitioner
Nos.3 to 6 were brought on record.
13. Sri G. Pedda Babu, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners submits that in pursuance to an
Agreement of Sale – cum – General Power of Attorney
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
11
dated 19-11-2003 two document Nos.7139 and 7140 of
2003 were registered in respect of subject properties by
paying the necessary stamp duty and registration fees.
Thereafter by virtue of rights and interests got by
registered agreements dated 19.11.2003, the petitioners
have jointly developed the said property by constructing a
commercial complex and sold away the same under
several sale deeds to public by paying required stamp
duty and registration fees on the sale price and as per the
valuation certificate obtained from the concerned
registration office.
14. Learned senior counsel would submit that the
respondent issued a show cause notice dated 17.09.2009
and the petitioners have given a written reply dated
08.10.2009 denying all the allegations and in reply it was
specifically submitted that as per the valuation certificate,
the registration value is Rs.7,000/- per Square Yard only
by the year 2009 and as such they have neither
suppressed the facts nor the correct value.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
12
15. Learned senior counsel refers to the impugned Memo
dated 02.01.2009 wherein amounts were charged towards
alleged deficit stamp duty and registration fees and refers
to Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which is the
charging section and submits that instruments
mentioned therein are only chargeable with stamp duty
subject to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
and the exemptions contained in Schedule-1 and further
submit that the following instruments shall be chargeable
with duty of the amount thereof:
“Thus, under this Act, only instruments
mentioned therein are only chargeable with duty
specified.
Instrument is defined under section 2 (14)
“Instrument” includes every document by which
any right or liability, is or purported to be,
created, transferred, limited, extended,
extinguished or recorded.”
16. Learned senior counsel further submits that in the
present case as far as duty charged under item Nos.1 to
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
13
3, there are no instruments (documents) at all in the
impugned order dated 02.01.2009 and without there
being any instrument (document) charging stamp duty
does not arise. As such charging of stamp duty and
imposing fine thereon is illegal, without authority,
jurisdiction and the demand cannot sustain.
17. Learned senior counsel would further submit that in
the counter filed by respondent, it is stated that the first
petitioner entered into an unregistered development
agreement dated 02-08-2004 in favour of M/s.Sri Rama
Commercial complex, a proprietary concern to which 1st
petitioner himself is a proprietor in which he claims to be
owner of 700 Sq. Yards under document No.7139 of 2003
and further submits that the said unregistered document
was neither presented for registration nor used nor
mentioned nor enforced for any purpose and is not
relevant for the preset writ petition.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
14
18. Learned senior counsel further submits that when a
statutory functionary makes an order based on certain
grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons
in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. In support of his
submissions, relies on the judgment in Mohinder Singh
Gill and Ors. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner,
New Delhi and Ors.,1.
19. Learned senior counsel further submits that the
notices are bereft of any reasons and should be supported
by reasons contained in and the said notices must stand
or fall on the reasons given in those notices and cannot
be supported by any other reason that is given by way of
affidavit, counter-affidavit or otherwise. In support of his
submissions relied upon the judgment in 3 Aces,
Hyderabad v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad2
(W.P.No.10019 f 1993).
1
AIR 1978 851-(1978) 1 SCC 405
2
MANU/AP/0002/1995
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
15
20. Learned senior counsel further submits that the
contentions raised in the counter that the very
registration of the Agreement of Sale-cum- General Power
of Attorney Nos.7139 and 7140 of 2003 are itself on the
basis of misrepresentation, wherein the true value of the
property was not disclosed and that the said property was
facing the main road and at the time of spot inspection it
was noticed that its value is Rs.11,000/- per Sq. Yard as
incorrect and misleading. The petitioner had filed copies
of the sale deeds in material papers along with Writ
Petition. Learned senior counsel further refers to the
recitals in the document No.7139 of 2003 and the plan
attached therein and draws attention of this Court that
the property purchased is facing Rashtrapathi Road of
Nalgonda Town on its west and each Square Yard is
valued at Rs.4400/- in the said document and the recitals
in the document No.7140 of 2003 and plan attached to it
clearly shows that the property purchased is situated
towards eastern border of the property purchased under
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
16
document No.7139 of 2003 and facing Bagh Pyare Street
of Nalgonda Town and each Square Yard is valued at
Rs.1100/- for the purpose of registration as such there is
no suppression of any material fact.
21. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps
and Registration appearing for respondent submits that
in the impugned notice dated 17.09.2009, the petitioners
were requested to explain that both the petitioners have
developed the property into a commercial complex, facing
R.P. Road and development agreement has to be
compulsorily registered and stamp duty to be paid as per
Act (6) B of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
and that the total property has been sold vide various sale
deeds mentioned in the said notice among them without
registering the development agreement which escaped
charge of stamp duty at 6% and that the total property is
facing R.P. Road and the value is Rs.11,000/- Sq. Yard
but the petitioners have adopted Rs.7,000/- Sq. yard only
as such they have suppressed the said facts in two
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
17
documents and action has to be initiated for violation of
Sections 27, 64 and 82 of Registration Act 1908. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader further draws attention of
this Court to the notice dated 17.09.2009 issued by the
District Registrar, Nalgonda wherein the following points
were sought explanation from the petitioners:
“The parties were requested to explain on the
following items.
1. There was no GPA to Sri.Badra Reddy for
1350 Sq. Yards but has become owner of the
property along with Sri.P.K.R Reddy.
2. There was no GPA to Sri. P.K.R.Reddy for
700 Sq.yrds. But he has become the owner of the
property along with Sri. Badra Reddy.
3. Both the above Sri.Badra Reddy and
S.K.Kodanda Reddy has developed the property
into a commercial complex, facing R.P Road.
Development agreement has to compulsory
registered as per Art (6) B of Act 1899. The total
property has been sold among these two with out
registering the development agreement and it has
to be charged at 6%.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 201018
4. The total property is facing R.P. Road and
two value is Rs.11000/- per Sq. yard. But you
have adopted Rs.7000/- only and there by
suppressed the fact in two documents and action
has to be initiated for violation of Section 27 and
64 of Indian Stamp Act and Section 82 of Indian
Registration Act 1908.”
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
22. On a perusal of the Agreements of Sale – cum –
General Power of Attorney vide documents No.7139 and
7140 of 2003, would reveal that both are executed on
19.11.2003. As per the recitals of document No.7139 of
2003, the vendor of the petitioners have agreed to sell the
scheduled property M.H.Nos.5-4-41, 5-4-42, 5-4-43,
5-4-44, 5-4-46, 5-4-47 and 5-4-48, admeasuring 700
square yards or 585.27 square meters situated at
Rashtrapathi Road, Nalgonda Town, for a total sale
consideration of Rs.30,80,000/- and an advance amount
of Rs.7,50,000/- has been paid and after payment of
balance amount, the vendor agreed to execute the sale
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
19
deed or deeds and get the same registered in favour of the
purchasers, their nominees, family members or any other
intending purchasers. Similarly, in the document
No.7140 of 2003, for the scheduled property admeasuring
1250 square yards in M.H.No.5-4-45 and 100 square
yards in H.No.5-4-66 and 5-4-66/A, total sale
consideration for Rs.14,85,000/- and advance amount for
Rs.7,50,000/- was received by the owners. In the said
documents power to develop the property was not
conferred and petitioners have not completed the
transaction and thereafter no sale deed has been
registered in favour of the petitioners transferring /
conveying title. As per the said agreements, the
petitioners are authorized to deal with the property for
future and there are no specific recitals to the extent of
developing the property and selling any developed /
constructed property to the third parties.
23. The petitioners have jointly developed the subject
property without having any pre existing right on the
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
20
subject property and sold portion of property to third
parties. In the counter, a copy of unregistered
development agreement dated 02.08.2004 was filed,
which was executed in favour of M/s.Sri Rama
Commercial Complex a proprietary concern of which the
1st petitioner is a Proprietor and as per the recitals in the
said document, the 1st petitioner claims to be an owner
and possessor of the land measuring 700 Sq. yards under
a document styled as sale-cum-GPA bearing document
No.7139 of 2003. The very execution of the document by
the 1st petitioner in his individual name (signed by 1st
petitioner himself as 1st party and 2nd party) itself is
misleading and that the very registration of the agreement
of sale – cum – General Power of Attorney Nos.7139 and
7140 of 2003 does not confer power on the petitioners to
develop and sell individual units. On a perusal of the
document bearing No.7139 of 2003, it is noted that
wherein the west side property was facing R.P. Road and
as per the statement furnished under Rule 3 of Andhra
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
21
Pradesh Stamps (prevention of under valuation
Instruments Rules 1975), the market value is shown is
Rs.4,400/- per Sq. yard. Similarly, on a perusal of the
document bearing No.7140 of 2003 wherein there is no
reference of R.P. Road in the schedule of property and as
per the statement furnished under Rule 3 of Andhra
Pradesh Stamps (prevention of under valuation
Instruments Rules 1975) the market value is shown as
Rs.1,100/- per Sq. yard. At the time of spot inspection, it
was noticed that the property was facing the Rashtrapati
road a prime locality and the value of which is
Rs.11,000/- per Square Yard and the writ petitioners has
got the documents registered by showing the value as
Rs.7000/- per Sq. Yards.
24. Then in the reply dated 08.10.2009, the petitioners
while denying the allegations submitted that both the
owners of the property executed 2 registered Agreements
of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 19.11.2003
vide document Nos.7139 and 7140 of 2003 in favour of
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
22
the petitioners and the properties were developed by the
GPA holders from out of their own funds and
subsequently were sold as per the registered sale deeds
and that when both the GPA holders have joined in
execution of the sale deeds, automatically the title is
derived no matter whether one particular property is
covered by only one of the Power of Attorney holder.
Therefore there is no illegality at all and in reply to other
objections, petitioners replied that it is not a Development
Agreement as contemplated under Article 6(B) Schedule
1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and in the present
case there is no question of any such development. As
regards valuation of the property, the petitioners have
obtained Valuation Certificate before registration of the
document and as per the said certificate, the value is
stated as Rs.7,000/-. Therefore, there is no question of
suppression of facts in the two documents and requested
to drop the proceedings under Sections 27 and 64 of
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
23
Indian Stamp Act and Section 82 of Indian Registration
Act 1908.
25. The District Registrar in the Notice dated
17.09.2009 and in the Memo dated 02.01.2009, informed
the petitioners that notices were issued for suppression of
facts which comes under the purview of Sections 27, 64
and 70(1)(2) and GPA is chargeable under Section 47-A of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which are extracted below for
reference.
“27. Facts affecting duty to be set forth in
instrument –The consideration if any, the market
value of the property and all other facts and
circumstances affecting the chargeability of any
instrument with duty, or the amount of the duty with
which it is chargeable, shall be fully and truly set
forth therein.
Provided that a registering officer appointed
under the Registration Act, 1908 or any other officer
authorized in this behalf, may inspect the property,
which is the subject matter of such instrument, make
necessary local enquiries call for and examine all the
connected records and satisfy that the provisions of
this section are complied with.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 201024
47-A. Instruments of conveyance, etc., valuation
how to be dealt with- Any instrument of
conveyance, exchange, gift, partition, settlement,
release, agreement relating to construction,
development or sale of any immovable property or
power of attorney given for sale, development of
immovable property, or any such instrument which
is subject to market value under Schedule I-A shall
be presented for registration before the registering
officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908
(Central Act 16 of 1908), only after payment of the
full amount of the Stamp Duty payable on the
consideration value of the property set forth in the
instrument or the market value determined as per
the Market Value Guidelines prescribed by the
Government from time to time, whichever is higher.
Provided that in respect of instruments
executed by or on behalf of the Central Government
or the State Government or any authority or body
incorporate by or under any law for the time being in
force and wholly owned by Central or State
Government, the market value of any property shall
be the value shown in such instrument.”
64. Penalty for omission to comply with
provisions of section 27. — Any person who, with
intent to defraud the Government :
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 201025
(a) executes any instrument in which all the facts
and circumstances required by section 27 to be set
forth in such instrument are not fully and truly set
forth; or
(b) being employed or concerned in or about the
preparation of any instrument, neglects or omits
fully and truly to set forth therein all such facts and
circumstances; or
(c) does any other act calculated to deprive the
Government of any duty or penalty under this Act;
shall be punishable with fine which may extend to
five thousand rupees.
70. Institution and conduct of prosecution —
(1) No prosecution in respect of any offence
punishable under this Act or any Act hereby
repealed, shall be instituted without the sanction of
the Collector or such other officer as the State
Government generally, or the Collector specially,
authorizes in that behalf.
(2) The Chief Controlling Revenue-authority, or any
officer generally or specially authorized by it in this
behalf, may stay any such prosecution or compound
any such offence by levying a compounding fee
which shall include the deficit stamp duty, if any
and a penalty of three times of the deficit stamp
duty.”
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
26
26. Subsequently, another notice was issued dated
02.01.2009 which was received on 02.01.2010. In the
said notice the District Registrar, Nalgonda considering
the explanation dated 08-10-2009 submitted by the
petitioners has drawn attention to the following rule
position:
“1) According to Sec-5 of the AP apartments
(Promotion of Construction and Ownership)
Act, 1987, the promoter who intends to
transfer any apartment shall invariably, before
accepting any sum of money as advance
payment or deposit (which shall not exceed
20% of the price) enter into a written
agreement as a document. Compulsorily
registerable under cl. (b) of sub-section (1) of
Sec-17 of the registration Act, 1908.
2) Every registration of sale of undivided share
of land which is intended for construction of
apartment, must be accompanied by either
construction agreement or development
agreement in respect of proposed apartment
which has to be executed by paying stamp
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 201027
duty @ 1% on the sale consideration or
estimated cost of construction/development,
as declared by the party in the document,
subject to max., of Rs.20,000/- as per G.O.Ms.
No. 1475, Revenue (Regn:1) Department dated:
30-07-2005. This is with effect from 30-07-
2005 prior to that. As per Article 6 (B) of
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 the duty is leviable at
5%.”
27. In the said notice dated 02.01.2009, it is further
drawn to the petitioners attention that both the
petitioners have no pre existing right over lands as per
General Power of Attorneys and with out having pre
existing right over the property admeasuring 2050 Sq.
Yards, both the petitioners have developed the Property
and before developing the property ought to have entered
into development agreement. Since the property is jointly
developed, the applicable stamp duty on the development
Agreements is to be in accordance to Article 6(B) Schedule
1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the development
agreements are compulsorily registered under Section 17
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
28
(1) of Indian Registration Act 1908. That apart provisions
of Section 5 Andhra Pradesh Apartment Act 1987 are also
applicable. As regards the adoption of the market value
on the property in question was concerned, the
contentions were not accepted. It was further clarified
that obtaining the Market Value Certificate is different
and as per the recitals of the document, the property is
facing R.P. Road which is valued at Rs.11000/- per Sq.
Yard. Though it is facing R.P Road, petitioners adopted
the back side Road Value which comes under the purview
of Sections 27, 64 and 70 (1) (2) of Indian Stamp Act,
1899, as such, petitioners were requested to pay the
deficit duty in terms of the property developed on the said
2000 Sq. yards which was calculated in detail and finally
it was informed to the petitioner that they were liable to
pay the differences of value amounting to Rs.14,91,460/-
+ penalty of 1% from the date of execution of the
instrument.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
29
28. On a perusal of the calculations made in the
impugned Memo dated 02.01.2009, the District Registrar,
Nalgonda while noting the deviations in the recitals of the
documents had observed the total value of the developed
property on 2000 Sq. yards in the year 2003, wherein 3
floors have been constructed to an extent of 9372 Sq. feet
and cellar was constructed to an extent of 3124 Sq. feet
and the stamp duty calculated was 5% for the
development agreement as per the amendment Act 6 (B).
It was further observed that there was no General Power
of Attorney in favour of the petitioners who became the
owner of the site and stamp duty is chargeable under
Article 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
29. The petitioner had filed copies of sale deeds which
are subject matter of the notice dated 17.09.2009. As per
the recitals in one of the sale deed bearing document
No.6401 of 2009 dated 29.07.2009, it appears that the
petitioners have constituted a partnership firm registered
under the name and style of “M/s.Sree Rama Associates”
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 201030
for the purpose of development and sale of the said
property and obtained municipal permission for
construction vide proceedings No.G1/302/2003 dated
02.01.2004 from Municipality, Nalgonda and in
pursuance of the partnership deed bearing No.70 of 2004
dated 11.10.2004, they have developed the said property
into a commercial complex known as “Sree Rama
Complex”. Similar recitals were made in all the sale deed
documents.
30. It is pertinent to note that Agreement of Sale – cum –
General Power of Attorney dated 19.11.2003
(Doc.No.7139/2003 & 7140/2003) is only an agreement
of sale for the dealing the property of the petitioners
vendors. However, the partnership deed dated 11.10.2004
entered by the petitioners is for the purpose of
development of the property and accordingly the
Municipal permission was obtained for construction of
commercial complex. The petitioners have constructed the
commercial complex on the basis of the aforesaid
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
31
documents which do not confer any right on them for
construction of the said complex.
31. At this juncture it is relevant to extract Articles 6(A)
and 6(B) of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act:
6. Agreement or Memorandum of an
agreement not otherwise provided for
A) Where the value —
(a) does not exceed Rs.5,000/- Rs.50/- (for value upto Rs.50.000/-)
(b) exceeds Rs. 5,000/- but does not Rs.100/- (for value exceeding
exceeds 20,000/- Rs.50,000/-to 2,00,000/-)
(c) exceeds Rs.20,000/- but does not Rs.200/- (for value exceeding
exceed Rs.50,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-)
(d) exceeds Rs.50,000/- Rs.200/- (for value exceeding)
Rs.2,00,000/-)
B) If relating to construction of a house Five Rupees for every one hundred
or including a multi-unit house or rupees or part thereof on the market
building or unit of apartment/flat/ value or the estimated cost of the
portion of a multi-storied building or proposed construction development of
for development/ sale of any other such property as the case may be, as
immovable property. mentioned in the agreement or the
value arrived at in accordance with the
schedule of rates prescribed by the
Public Works Department authorities,
whichever is higher
32. The petitioners by constituting a partnership firm by
name ‘Sri Rama Associates’ have developed the property
and executed various sale deeds in Units in super built
area with un-divided share of land. The said sale deeds
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
32
were executed by the petitioners along with the original
owners. The petitioners as per the earlier transactions
vide document Nos.7139 and 7140 of 2003 have not
completed the said transaction and no sale deeds were
executed and registered in favour of the petitioner. In
terms of the said documents, the petitioners have right
only to deal with the property and not to develop. There is
no development agreement copy which is a primary
document to be considered to cover the entire transaction
including the sale of development of the super buildup
area to the land owners which attracts charge of stamp
duty on the constructions made. The petitioners have
invested their own funds, developed the property in
question and executed various sale deeds along with their
vendors. But in the absence of entering into the
development agreement, submissions of the learned
senior counsel that without there being any instrument /
document, charge of stamp duty and consequential
charges and imposing fine thereon does not arise is not
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
33
sustainable and cannot be accepted in the absence of
development agreement. Admittedly, the petitioners’
interest was created on the development / construction
and the deviations were noticed through the inspection
works carried out. Even in the absence of any written
agreement for development of the property, and if any
constructions are made thereon and in the present case
constructions were made, completed and sold, as such
stamp duty is attracted and chargeable in terms of Article
6B of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the
same cannot be escaped by way of oral agreement.
Therefore, the submissions of the petitioners lacks merit.
33. On a careful perusal of recitals in the documents
bearing Nos.7139 and 7140 of 2003, it would reveal that
the petitioners have entered into an agreement of sale –
cum – General Power of Attorney for the purpose of
dealing the property. However, no title has been conveyed
to the petitioners and in the absence of the same have
jointly developed the properties under the said documents
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
34
and constructed a commercial complex by name M/s.Sri
Rama Commercial Complex with a super built up area of
3 floors admeasuring 9372 Sq. feet and cellar
admeasuring 3124 Sq. feet and sold various portions vide
different sale deeds bearing document Nos.6029, 6401,
6402, 6403, 6404 and 2318 of 2009. The notices dated
17.09.2009 and 02.01.2009 issued by the District
Registrar, Nalgonda in which the above documents are
subject matter of demand for deficit stamp duty discloses
that the petitioners have suppressed the facts and
constructed the commercial complex without any
development agreement and sold to various parties and
thereby avoided payment of stamp duty on development
agreement as per Article 6(B) Schedule 1-A of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899. As such the reasons stated in the
impugned notice bearing No.CC/PF/2009 dated
02.01.2009 to the extent of stamp duty demanded for the
development agreement and the charges under Section
47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 towards General
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
35
Power of Attorney are well founded. In view of the
aforesaid reasons, the impugned order bearing
No.CC/PF/2009 dated 02.01.2009 issued by the District
Registrar, Nalgonda does not warrant any interference
and for the aforesaid reasons this writ petition is devoid of
merits, fails and is liable to be dismissed.
34. As regards the valuations of the property, which are
being questioned by the petitioners, the same are
disputed questions of facts and cannot be decided on the
basis of the affidavits and the petitioners may avail
remedies as available under law.
35. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications,
if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
June 09, 2025
Note: LR copy to be
marked. B/o.PN
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1341 of 2010
36
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.1341 of 2010
June 09, 2025
Note: LR copy to be
marked. B/o.PN