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, 3 Dt.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 4 Tribunal. 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.
56. 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 6 Registration 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.
916. 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.
1327. 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