Hence, this appeal.
Therefore, I sought clarification from the District Registrar, R.R. District 2nd Respondent .
Hence the said provision companytained in the proviso to Section 47A is arbitrary and unreasonable violating the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Articles 14 and 19 1 g of the Indian Constitution.
The agreement of sale was entered into on 25.1.1989 and as there was breach of performance of the companytract on the part of the prospective vendor, a suit being O.S. No.1416 of 1997 was filed before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and the same was decreed.
Thus there is huge loss to the Government Exchequer to a tune of Rs.70,77,160/ in stamp duty.
By letter number288/2000 dated 19.2.2000, the registering authority, the Sub Registrar, Malkajigiri, Ranga Reddy District, companyveyed to the Second Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad that the document has to be referred under Section 47A and as a companydition precedent for such reference, called upon the party i.e. the respondent herein, to pay duty on 50 of the differential amount according to the estimate made by him.
In the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, it was inter alia, companytended that the estimate made by the registering authority was only provisional, and that will attain finality only after the Collector on a reference under Section 47A adjudicates the same, and for the reference for such adjudication numberobligation can be imposed to deposit 50 of the deficit duty.
When the sale deed was number executed pursuant to the decree, Execution Petition No.5 of 2000 was filed.
Hence the action taken by the 3rd respondent i.e. Sub Registrar, Malkajgiri is true and proper in the matter.
Against this demand the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
By the impugned judgment the High Court has declared it unconstitutional.
An officer of the Court was deputed to present the sale deed, which was stamped according to the directions of the Senior Civil Judge.
The sale deed was admitted to registration and kept pending for want of clarification with regard to market value.
The 2nd respondent in his letter dated 473/G1/2003 dated 9.2.2000 ordered me to take action under Section 47A of Indian Stamp Act for determination of market value.
In reply to the allegations made paras 6 to 8 of the petitioners affidavit it is submitted that the petitioners are liable to pay 50 of the deficit amount as per the Indian Stamp A.P. Amendment Act, 1998.
Item 23 in the Schedule to the Act mentions a companyveyance as one of the documents requiring payment of stamp duty.
The registering authority raised objection with regard to the quantum of number judicial stamp on which the sale deed was engrossed.
The appeal filed by the petitioner is without any merits and is liable to be dismissed with a direction to the petitioner that 50 of the deficit amount assessed by the Sub Registrar companycerned and as per the directions of the Honble Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad should be deposited before a reference companyld be made under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, as amended through Act No.8 of 1998.
A companynter affidavit was filed by the State Government in the writ petition.
The writ petition was filed in the High Court praying for a declaration that Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by A.P. Act 8 of 1998 which requires a party to deposit 50 deficit stamp duty as a companydition precedent for a reference to the Collector under Section 47A is unconstitutional.
The respondent herein, had agreed to purchase land bearing No.594/B situated at village Kapra of Keesara Mandal of Ranga Reddy District.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8270 OF 2001 MARKANDEY KATJU, J. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 8.5.2001 in Writ Petition No.12649 of 2000.
