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 2010 3 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 2010 4 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 2010 18
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 2010 24 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 2010 25
(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 2010 27 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 2010 30 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