Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The District Registrar vs Maddula Mahendra Avinash on 16 December, 2021
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.No.823 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioners had purchased a property in a public auction conducted under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act') for a sum of Rs.75,10,100/-. Subsequently a sale certificate to that effect was also given to the petitioners, and the same was presented for registration before the Joint Sub-Registrar, Kavali. As there was a difference between the value calculated by the Joint Sub-Registrar and the value shown in the sale certificate, the issue was referred to the District Registrar of Assurances, Nellore under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. By an order dated 23.12.2020, the District Registrar of Assurances, by his proceedings No.G1/2035/2020 dated 23.12.2020, directed the Joint Sub-Registrar, Kavali, to register the sale certificate on the basis of the value of Rs.2,53,07,580/- and to collect deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fee. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2021 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, who allowed the appeal on 19.04.2021 holding that the registration authorities should collect stamp duty and registration charges only on the value of Rs.75,10,100/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the registration authorities have filed the present civil revision petition before this Court.
Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.N. Devadoss vs. Chief 2 RRR,J C.R.P.No.823 of 2021 Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and ors.,1 and a judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Pinak Bharat & Co., and anr., vs. Anil Ramarao Naik2 and contends that the registration and stamp duty are to be calculated on the higher of the valuations shown either in the sale deed or according to the record maintained by the registration department.
Sri T. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T. Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above as well as the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.19768 of 2020 dated 02.11.2020; W.A.No.15 of 2021 dated 31.03.2021; and a judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.17600 of 2011 and W.P.No.32791 of 2013 dated 24.01.2014. He also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. vs. Devi Sea Foods Limited, in S.L.P.(C).No.13911 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021.
The reference to the District Registrar was made under Section 47- A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.N. Devadoss vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and ors., had considered the ambit and scope of Section 47-A and held that the provisions of Section 47-A would be applicable only where there is wilful under valuation of the subject property with fraudulent intention to evade payment of stamp duty.
In the present case, the sale had been conducted by way of a public auction under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and there is no finding of any nature in the order of the District Registrar to hold that there was any wilful under valuation of the subject property under the 1 (2009) 7 SCC 438 2 (2019) SCC Online Bom 527 3 RRR,J C.R.P.No.823 of 2021 sale. In such circumstances, the exercise of jurisdiction by the District Registrar is itself without authority of law.
Apart from the above reason, a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had gone into the issue whether sales conducted by way of public auction can be brought under the purview of Section 47-A. The learned Judge after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above, and the other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the question of valuation and review of such valuation under Section 47-A cannot be raised in cases where sales are conducted by way of public auction.
I am in respectful agreement with the said view enunciated by the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Pinak Bharat & Co., and anr., vs. Anil Ramarao Naik. A perusal of this judgment would show that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay had also held that where a Court, after being satisfied with the valuation in execution of a decree, goes through with a public auction, such a valuation is not open to question by the adjudicating authority. The said judgment does not assist the case of the revenue.
For all the aforesaid reasons, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
16th December, 2021 Js.
4 RRR,J C.R.P.No.823 of 2021 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO C.R.P.No.823 of 2021 16th December, 2021 Js.