Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Musunuri Satyannarayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 June, 2025
1
APHC010257362024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 13939 OF 2024
Between:
1. MUSUNURI SATYANNARAYANA, S/O. BASAVAIAH, AGED 85
YEARS, SENIOR CIVITIZEN, R/O. DOOR NO.2-3,
NO.2 3, CHUNDURUPALLI,
MULUKUDURU POST VIA MACHAVARAM, PONNUR MANDAL,
GUNTUR DT. PIN 522315,CELL NO.9701253222.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION,
DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI.
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION,
GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR.
3. THE SUBREGISTRAR, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION,
REGISTRATION, PONNUR,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TENALI DIVISION. R4 IS
SUO MOTO IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER 04.07.2024.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PARTY IN PERSON
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
2
1. K A NARASIMHAM
2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
The Court made the following ORDER:
Heard Sri Musunuri Satyanarayana (Party in Person), Sri
K.A.Narasimham, learned Amicus Curiae and Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Land Acquisition, Stamps &
Registration.
2. The Writ Petitioner viz., Sri Musunuri Satyanarayana (Party in
Person) appeared in person. Although the Petitioner could make out a case,
since this Court is of the view that several serious legal issues are involved in
the present matter, this Court has appointed Sri K.A. Narasimham as Amicus
Curiae as he had willingly agreed to assist the Court.
3. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“I submit that in the circumstances stated above, it is
hereby prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
issue a writ, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus for
refund of excess stamp duty and registration fees illegally
collected from the Petitioner by 3rd Respondent under the
direction of 2nd Respondent while registering the
Document No 6727/2024, Dt.26.03.2024 executed by the
executing Court as Executant on behalf of judgment
debtor Tummala Indira Devi in terms of final order of the
Hon’ble Apex Court which was passed under Special Act
namely A.P.(A.A) Tenancy Act 1956 which will override on
General Act i.e. Stamps and Registration Act or any other
appropriate writ, Direction or order declaring that the
direction issued by the 2nd Respondent in his memo
No.E1/3960/2023, Dt.17.11.2023 to the 3rd Respondent to
collect stamp duty @ Rs.6.5% and registration fees @
Rs.1% on the prevailing market value of Rs.7,56,000/- (at
Rs.21,00,000/- per acre) as on the date of presentation of
the document instead of at 11% towards stamp duty and
registration fees in existence as on date of possessary
sale @ Rs.1,25,000/- per acre came into effect from
26.09.2003 as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme court
under Special Act in SLP No.28696-28697/2015,
3Dt.27.10.2021 without giving an opportunity to the
Petitioner, who is an appellant before the 2nd Respondent
and by not considering the settled rulings, made the
petitioner to compel to pay Rs.57,200/- as against Rs.
4,950/- in excess of Rs. 52,250/- is illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to Article 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India
and also violation of Special Statute of A.P. (AA) Tenancy
Act, 1956 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in determining the
registration stamp duty and resignation fees against the
settled law that special law will over ride the general law
i.e. stamp Act, and to pass such other order or orders as
the Hon’ble Court may think deem fit and proper.”
4. The facts which are not in dispute:
The Petitioner herein had approached the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy
Tribunal claiming various reliefs under Section 15 and 16 (1) of the Andhra
Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 for declaratory relief that the price
of the schedule land that is Rs.1,25,000/- per acre is reasonable and stood
accepted by the 1st Respondent by receiving first installment of Rs.49,125/- by
Demand Draft and that he was entitled to pay the balance sale process of
Rs.4,45,122/- to the landlord (Dr. Tirumala Indira Devi) in seven installments.
The Writ Petitioner has also sought for declaration that the Registered Sale
Deeds executed by Dr. Tirumala Indira Devi in favour of the third parties are
void and further sought an injunction against the Respondents therein to
prevent them from interfering with his possession and tenancy of the petition
schedule land.The Tribunal granted all the reliefs in favour of the Petitioner as
prayed for. Consequently, the Petitioner became entitled to purchase rights
as the law allowed.
4.1. Dr. Tirumala Indira Devi has preferred Appeals before the District
Court and the said Appeals were allowed. The District Judge held that the Writ
Petitioner (Respondent therein) had not established any continuing jural
relation of landlady and tenant to show the same subsisted between him and
the 1st Respondent. Accordingly, the Learned District Judge had allowed the
Appeal of the landlady, and thereby reversed the findings of the Land Reforms
4Tribunal. The Petitioner herein, having been aggrieved by the Order of the Ld.
District Judge, approached this Hon’ble Court by filling Revision Petitions.
The contention of the Petitioner was that he had continued as a tenant without
any break and therefore had a prior right to purchase the property under
Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. This
Hon’ble Court concurred with the reasoning of the Learned District Judge that
the claim of the Writ Petitioner for priority purchase was untenable in the facts
of the case and that the relief granted by the Primary Tribunal in favour of the
Writ Petitioner was impermissible. On the basis of this reasoning, this Court
had dismissed the present Revision Petition. The Writ Petitioner, having been
aggrieved by the orders passed by this Court in Revision Petitions, had
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing SLP (C) Nos.28696
and 28697 of 2015. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, having converted
the said SLP(C) into Civil Appeals Nos.6482 and 6483 of 2021 was pleased to
allow the said Civil Appeals vide Order dated vide Order dated 27.10.2021.
The Orders of the District Judge as well as the High Court in the Revision
Petitions were set aside. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had upheld the
findings rendered by the Primary Tribunal as regards the Writ Petitioner’s right
to purchase the property under Section 15 of the Act. The operative portion of
the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as under:
“For the above reasons, the impugned order of the
High Court, as well as the judgment of the District
Court, are hereby set aside. The order of the Tribunal
is hereby restored. This Court hereby records its
appreciation for the assistance given by Mr. Sridhar
Potaraju, the amicus appointed in this case. The
appeals are allowed in these terms, without order on
costs.
5. The difficulties of the Writ Petitioner did not end by this. The Writ
Petitioner had approached the Primary Tribunal for execution of the Order
passed by the Supreme Court dated 27.10.2021 in Civil Appeals Nos.6482
and 6483 of 2021.
5
6. The Writ Petitioner herein has filed E.P.18 of 2021 in ATC No.02
of 2003 requesting the executing Court to execute Sale Deed on behalf of Dr.
Indira Devi in favour of the Writ Petitioner herein with respect to an extent of
Ac.0.36 cents in D.No.65/5B of Mulukuduru village. The executing Court
namely the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur had addressed a Letter to the
Sub-Registrar, Ponnur along with copy of the Sale Deed that is sought to be
registered vide Dis.No.296, dated 26.08.2023. The Sub-Registrar, Ponnur,
after having considered the contents of the Sale Deed had noticed that the
party of the document has adopted the value of the property at Rs.45,000/-
for an extent of Ac.0.36 cents which translates to Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. It is
the contention of the Sub-Registrar of Ponnur that as per the Market Value
Register, the subject property is valued at Rs.21,00,000/- per acre and as
such market value for an extent of Ac.0.36 cents would come to
Rs.7,56,000/-.
7. As the Writ Petitioner had insisted that he is liable to pay the
Stamp Duty and the Registration Charge as per the sale price as reflected in
the Sale Deed, the Sub-Registrar, Ponnur (Respondent No.3), had returned
the Sale Deed to the Court without registering the same vide Letter
No.115/2023 (Ex.P.5) dated 04.09.2024, by raising the following objections.
4. I submit that the 3rd Respondent, Sub-Registrar,
Ponnur, returned the sale deed document to the Court
without registering the same by raising the following
objections vide his letter No.115/2023, Dt.04.09.2024
(Ex.P-5).
“i) That as per recitals of the document the party has
adopted the market value of Rs.45,000/- at the rate of
Rs.1,25,000/- per acre in respect of Ac 0.36 cents.
ii) That as per market value guidelines register of this
office, the market value of the S.No.65/5B of Mulukuduru
Village is Rs.21,00,000/-. As such the market value of Ac
0.36 cents is arrived at Rs.7,56,000/-.
iii) That in view of the Supreme Court judgment in
C.A.No.5273 of 2007 the commissioner and Inspector of
6Registration and stamps A.P.Vide proceedings
No.MV6/7073/2008, Dt.07.05.2008 clarified that the
chargebility instrument has to be decided as on the date
when the document tendered by the Vendor/Purchaser
at the time of registration of sale deed.
iv) Further the Hon’ble High Court in its judgment in
W.P.No.28188/2008 made it clear that the orders passed
by the Court in W.P.No.1649/2001 that the stamp duty
payable on the sale deed executed under the decree of
Specific performance is to be calculated at the rate
prevailing as on the date of execution of instrument itself
is correct and holds good.
v) The Commissioner and Inspector General of
Registration and stamps A.P., Hyderabad in
Lr.No.S1/12097/2006, Dt.25.4.2009 clarified that the
stamp duty, transfer duty and registration fees have to be
levied on the market value prevailing as on the date of
presentation of the document.
vi) In view of the above said submissions, the stamp duty
at the rate of 6.5% and @ 1% towards requistration fees
has to be paid on the market value of Rs.7,56,000/- in
the document.”
8. The Writ Petitioner has preferred statutory Appeal before the
District Registrar (Respondent No.2), Stamps and Registration, Guntur
against the decision of the Sub-Registrar, Ponnur (Respondent No.3). The
Respondent No.2 vide Memo E1/3960/2023 dated 17.11.2023 addressing to
the 3rdRespondent by marking a copy to the Petitioner directed to collect the
Stamp Duty @ 6.5% and the Registration Fee at 1% on the prevailing market
value of Rs.7,56,000/- in the document as on the date of presentation of the
document.
9. It is submitted by the Writ Petitioner that in view of this direction,
the Writ Petitioner had deposited the Stamp Duty as fixed by the Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 and got the document registered on 26.03.2024 bearing
document No.6727 of 2024 of SRO, Ponnur by paying the Stamp Duty and
Registration Fee at the rate determined by the Respondent No.2 vide
Proceeding dated 17.11.2023. It is submitted by the Writ Petitioner that
7
accordingly, the Writ Petitioner has deposited Rs.57,200/- towards the Stamp
Duty and Rs.4,915/- towards Registration Fee. According to the Writ
Petitioner, the Petitioner has made an excess payment of Rs.52,250/- as he
was compelled to pay the Registration Fee and Stamp Duty on the market
value as determined by the Sub-Registrar and the Registrar. Therefore, the
present Writ Petition is filed seeking refund of the excess fee paid by the Writ
Petitioner.
10. It is his contention that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the
Writ Petitioner has no right to compel the Writ Petitioner to pay the Stamp
Duty and the Registration Fee based on the market value reflected in the
Market Value Register.
11. Sri K.A.Narasimham, Learned Amicus Curie has submitted that
the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, is a beneficial piece
of legislation intended to protect the rights of the tenants. He would submit
that the said Act has created special rights in derogation to the right of the
ownership of the landlords, originally under Article 19 (1)(f) of the Constitution
of India which later became a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India. The special rights created in favour of the tenants
under the Act is also part of the land reforms undertaken by the Union of
India as well as the State Governments. He would submit that when the
special statute of this nature which is a socially beneficial piece of legislation
is enacted, the general law even in respect of assessment of Stamp Duty and
Registration Fee as applicable to the other transactions cannot be applied.
Ld. Amicus Curie has submitted that the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)
Tenancy Act, 1956 is a special enactment and also a subsequent enactment
compared to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Indian Registration Act, 1908.
He would submit that the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956
is the latest and special enactment and therefore the special enactment
which is also the latest shall have the primacy over the general enactment.
Learned Amicus Curie has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 17 of
8
the Act, 1956 and would submit that the Provisions of the Act shall have an
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any pre-
existing law, custom, usage, Agreement or decree or order of a Court.
12. On the above preposition, Ld. Amicus Curie has placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra &Anr
Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.;2024 INSC 270 (Civil
Appeal No.8821 of 2011 dated 05.04.2024). He has drawn the attention of
this Court to Para-11 of the said Judgment.
13. Ld. Amicus Curie has also referred to another Judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Sub-Registrar, Ernakulam Kochi Vs. K. Syed Ali
Kadar Pillai & Anr.;2022 INSC 338 (Civil Appeal Nos. 1326-1327 of 2010)
dated 24.03.2022.
14. Ld. Amicus Curie has also placed reliance on the judgment of
this Court in Swamy Talkies Vs. Sub-Registrar of Assurances, E.G. Dist.
and Ors.;1997 (1) ALD 779. He has also placed reliance on para 13 of the
said Order to the effect that Section 47-A of the same Act can be pressed
into service only in a case of supersession of real consideration or under-
valuation but not in a case of genuine transaction of sale.
15. Ld. Amicus Curie has also referred to another Judgment
rendered by Ld. Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in M/s. Super Gold
Constructions Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Partner A. HariKishan Rao,
Having its Reg Office at 3-2-848/9-11, Kachiguda, Hyderbad Vs. Sub-
Registrar, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh; 2017(3) ALT 603. He
has also placed reliance on Paras 8 to 11 of the said judgment on the
preposition that the incidence of sale in public auction wherein, the market
value cannot be countenanced and the amount fetched by way of public
action shall alone be considered for computing the stamp duty as well the
registration charges.
9
16. Ld. Amicus Curie has referred to another Judgment of Hon’ble
Court in Residents Welfare Association, Noida Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others; (2009) 14 SCC 716. He has drawn the attention of this Court to
Paras 48 and 49 of the said Judgment.
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT BY OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS:
17. The Sub-Registrar, Ponnur (Respondent No.3) has filed the
Counter-Affidavit justifying the stand taken by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3
herein.
ANALYSIS:
18. The object and intent of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)
amended Tenancy Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act No.39 of
1974, would itself indicate that the said Act has been enacted by the State
legislature with a view to confer benefit on the agricultural tenants who
belong to the poor and down-trodden sections of the society. The Act also
intends to emancipate the tenants from the clutches of the landlords by giving
pre-eminent rights for the tenant to purchase the property, whenever the
landlord intends to sell it. This statute also confers special right on the tenant
to purchase the said property at a particular price which is to be arrived
basing on the provision of the statute itself. This very principle clearly
indicates that the tenant is not expected to purchase the land from his or her
landlord at the market price. The tenants would be purchasing it, as per the
procedure laid down in section 15 of the Act which stipulates that the value of
the land is the five times of the Makhta (Annual rent paid by a tenant to the
landlord is called as Makhta). The Judgment rendered by the Full Bench of
this Hon’ble Court in Executive Officer, Sri M.S.N. Charities, Kakinada vs.
Pilla Ramarao and Others; 2000 SCC Online AP 270; AIR 2000 AP 409
had spelt out the essential features of the Act, 1956. Para No.11 of the said
Judgment is usefully extracted hereunder:
10
“11. The Tenancy Act was enacted with an object of
protecting the tenants from unjust eviction. It provided for
rents, rates and mode of payment. Provisions for
inheritance of tenancy, conditions of tenancy, regulating
the relationship of landlord and tenant, terms of lease,
termination of tenancy, eviction of tenants under
particular circumstances, preferential right of purchase
and providing that neither the lessee nor the landlord
would be entitled to hold or be in possession of land
either as owner or a cultivating tenant or both, exceeding
the ceiling limit provided by the ceiling laws.”
19. The Primary Tribunals are endowed with the responsibility of not
only examining and conferring the right of the tenant, but is also saddled with
the responsibility to fix the consideration under Section 15 in order to enable
the tenant to buy the land from the landlord. This makes it very clear that the
consideration itself is fixed by the statute with a view to confer substantial
benefit on the tenant and to enable him/her to buy the land which he has
always been tilling at a price which is affordable, which shall not be over and
above five times the annual rent, which the tenant has been paying. The
statute has also conferred another benefit on the tenant and that is the
provision for installments in favour of the tenant for paying even the said
consideration which is fixed under the statute. The provisions which are
discussed herein would indicate that it also has the trappings of beneficial
social legislation which is specially tailored for the benefit of tenants.
20. In fact, there are also other statutes which clearly indicate that
every transaction of purchase of immovable property is not guided by the real
market value or even the market value as indicated in the Market Value
Register of the Government. For example, an auction conducted by a
Company Law Board or auction conducted by a Civil Court in money
recovery Proceedings or for that matter, the auction conducted under
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), even if the value of the
immovable property that is ascertained through the public auction is lesser
than the market value, the law has become well settled that the value fetched
11
in a public auction shall alone be reckoned for fixation of Stamp Duty and
Registration Fee of such immovable property that has been subjected to
public auction.
21. In juxtaposition of the issue of the land acquired through the
operation of the Tenancy Act and the acquisition of immovable property by an
auction purchaser, this Court is rather constrained to state that the right of a
tenant is certainly a better right, which is protected under law when compared
to an auction purchaser under the SARFAESI Act, who has purchased the
immovable property in a public auction.
22. Facts in the present case would clearly indicate that the rights of
the tenant (the Writ Petitioner herein) got crystalized by the ratio in the ruling
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeals Nos.6482 and 6483 of 2021 dated
27.10.2021.
23. The residual course of action on the part of the Writ Petitioner
was only to get the immovable property secured by effecting registration.
The Primary Tribunal has already directed the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to
effect the registration. At the stage of registration, the issue has arisen
whether the tenant who has now become the owner of the property by
operation of the statute is liable to pay the market value as reflected in the
Market Value Register of the Government or is liable to pay only the Stamp
Duty and the Registration Charge based on the value that he had paid for
purchase of the property by exercising his right of a tenant. For this question,
in view of the above analysis, the answer would be that the Writ Petitioner, in
the capacity of agricultural tenant, would get the benefit of the Tenancy Act
even in respect of payment of Stamp Duty and Registration Charges. This
Court is also of the view that it would have never been the intendment of the
law maker to compel a tenant to pay the Registration Charge and the Stamp
duty on the basis of the market value, for, the very object of the Act would be
frustrated if such course would have been intended by the legislature. The
facts in this case would also in fact disclose that the Writ Petitioner, with a
12
view to secure his right, has paid the Stamp Duty and Registration Charge
that is calculated by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of the value
reflected in the Market Value Register. Since this action on the part of the
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is contrary to the objectives of the Act, this Court is
of the opinion that the said action of the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary
and go contrary to the provisions of Tenancy Act. As discussed earlier, the
Act, 1956 is the latest in point of time compared to the Stamp Act, 1899 and
the Registration Act, 1908. The Amendment Act No. 39 of 1974 has
amended the Section 15 prescribing the right of pre-eminent and preferential
to the Tenant to purchase the property of the landlord. The Act, 1956 is a
Special Enactment while the Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908
are General Enactments. Therefore, on both accounts, this Court holds that
the Provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 shall
prevail over the Provisions of the Stamp Act as well as Registration Act.
Therefore, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to refund the balance
amount by making a fresh calculation in terms of this Order.
24. The Writ Petitioner is directed to submit a copy of this Order to
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within four weeks from today. The Respondent
Authorities are directed to calculate the Stamp Duty and the Registration
Charges without referring to the market value of the land as reflected in the
Market Value Register.
25. Before parting with this case, it is the duty of the Court to place
on record the deep appreciation for the research that has been put in by the
Ld. Amicus Curie viz., Sri K.A. Narasimham Ld. Amicus Curie. This Court is
of the opinion that without his assistance it could have been difficult for this
Court to render a judgment. Therefore, the appreciation for his assistance to
the Court is placed on record.
26. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands
allowed. No order as to costs.
13
27. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this
order.
______________________________________
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 05.06.2025
Mnr
14
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.13939 OF 2024
Dt: 05.06.2025
Mnr