Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ramesh Kumar Kankaria, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 23 September, 2025
APHC010593992023
0:^0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
01 (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NOS: 30631, 31434 OF 2023 AND 7260. 20542. 213QQ
AND 21301 OF 2024
WRIT PETITION NO. 30631 OF 2023
Between:
Gundu Jaya Prakash Naidu, S/o Rama Krishna Gunda D.No. 4-62,
Gunda Vari Veedhi, Main Road, Veeravasaram, West Godavari District.
...Petitioner
AND
1.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Stamps and Registration Department,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi.
2. The District Registrar, West Godavari District.
3.
The Sub Registrar, D.No.5-2-10, SRO Road, Palakollu, West Godavari
District.
4.
The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps,
Amaravati.
5.
Canara Bank, ARM branch Vijayawada, Rep by its Manager.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature
of a 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring the action of 3rd Respondent in not
receiving and registering the Sale certificate dated 09.04.2021 in respect of
the property consisting of Ac. 03.10 cts of in R.S.No. 99/1 of Yallavani Garuvu
Village, bearing Dr No. 2-44 Appan Cheruvu, Penumadam Road, Yallavani
Garuvu gram Panchayat, Palakollu Rural Mandal, West Godavari District,
Andhra Pradeshby insisting payment of stamp duty calculated on the basis of
present market value instead of calculating the stamp duty on the basis of
sale consideration mentioned in the sale certificate as illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional besides contrary to the settled law enunciated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India and this Hon'ble Court and consequently and direct
3rd Respondent to receive and register the Sale Certificate dated
09.04.2021 on its presentation, by collecting stamp duty calculated on the sale
consideration mentioned in the said sale certificate.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
direct the Respondent to receive and register the Sale Certificate dated
09.04.2021 in respect of the property consisting of Ac. 03.10 cts of in R.S.No.
99/1 of Yailavani Garuvu Village, bearing Dr No. 2-44 Appan Cheruvu,
Penumadam Road, Yailavani Garuvu gram Panchayat, Palakollu Rural
Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh on its presentation by
collecting stamp duty calculated on the sale consideration mentioned in the
said sale certificate, pending the disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S M ABHIGNA LEARNED COUNSEL
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SRI P BADRINATH
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND
STAMPS
APHC010610752023
r
WRIT PETITION NO: 31434 OF 202.1
Between:
1. Ramesh Kumar Kankaria, S/o. Babulaiji, Aged 63 Years, R/o. D.No. 22-
11-5, Peddapali Street, Lalapet, Guntur Bazar, Guntur, Guntur District.
2. Jitendra Kumar Kankaria,, S/o. Pukhraj, Aged 48 Years, R/o. 21-18-
4/5, Kurmalavari Street, Chowtra Center, Guntur, Guntur District.
...Petltioners
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Stamps and Registration Department,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi.
2. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps,
Amaravathi.
3. The District Registrar, Guntur, Guntur District.
4. The Sub Register, Guntur Collectorate, Guntur Guntur District.
5. The Canara Bank, Rep by its Authorized Officer, ARM Branch,
Govemorpeta,Eluru Road, Vijayawada, NTR District.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue may an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2 to 4th
Respondents to receive and register the Sale Certificate dated 20.11.2023 in
respect of the Suit Schedule Property consisting of Vacant site admeasuring
2022 Sq. Yards Plot No.22 situated at D.No. 47/2 and 47/3 of R Agraharam
Village, R.L.P. No. 12/2008, Guntur Zilla Parishad limits, Guntur District
insisting payment of stamp duty calculated on the basis of present market
value instead of calculating the stamp duty on the basis of sale consideration
mentioned in the sale certificate as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional besides
contrary to the settled law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
and this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the 4th respondent to receive
and register the Sale Certificate dated 20.11.2023 on its presentation, by
collecting stamp duty calculated on the sale consideration mentioned in the
said sale certificate.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
direct the 4th Respondent to receive and register the Sale Certificate dated
20.11.2023 in respect of the property consisting of Vacant site admeasuring
2022 Sq. Yards Plot No.22 situated at D.No. 47/2 & 47/3 of R Agraharam
Village, R.L.P. No. 12/2008, Guntur Zilla Parishad limits, Guntur District its
presentation by collecting stamp duty calculated on the sale consideration
mentioned in the said sale certificate, pending the disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s MARELLA RADHA
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
APHC010134492024
WRIT PETITION NO: 7260 OF 2024
Between:
Suryadevara Ramesh, S/o Venketeswara Rao, R/o. 3-28-18/93,
Rajendra Nagar 1 ST Lane, Guntur, Pattabhipuram, Andhra Pradesh-
522006.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Stamps and Registration Department
Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi.
2. The District Registrar, Guntur District.
3. The Sub Registrar, Near Collector office. Main Road Guntur RO,
Guntur District
4. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps
Amaravati.
5. UCO Bank, Guntur Main Branch Rep by its Manager.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction one more particularly in the nature
of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3'''^ Respondent in not receiving
and registering the Sale certificate dated 11.03.2024 in respect of the
property consisting of an extent 1067.60 Sq. Yards of residential site situated
at D.No. 71/4B, at Ramachandrapura, Agraharam, Guntur Municipal
Corporation Area, Guntur Sub-District, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh by
insisting payment of stamp duty calculated on the basis of present market
value instead of calculating the duty on the basis of sale consideration
mentioned in the sale certificate as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional besides
contrary to the settled law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
and this Hon'ble Court and consequently and direct third Respondent to
receive and register the Sale Certificate dated 11.03.2024 on its presentation,
by collecting stamp duty calculated on the sale consideration mentioned i
in
the said sale certificate.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
direct the 3rd Respondent to receive and register the Sale Certificate dated
11.03.2024 in respect of the property consisting of an extent 1067.60
Sq.Yards of residential site situated at D.No. 71/4B, at Ramachandrapura,
Agraharam, Guntur Municipal Corporation Area, Guntur Sub-District, Guntur
District on its presentation by collecting stamp duty calculated on the sale
consideration mentioned in the said sale certificate, pending the disposal of
the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P BADRINATH
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND
STAMPS
APHC010402682024
WRIT PETITION NO: 20542 OF 2024
Between:
Muvva Siva Prasad, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged 42 years Occ:
Business, R/o 6-1, BC Colony, Kondapaturu, Guntur
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Stamps and Registration Department
Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi.
2. The District Registrar, Guntur, Guntur District.
3. The Sub Registrar, Near Collector office. Main Road Guntur (R.O.)
Guntur District.
4. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps
Amaravati.
5. Indian Overseas Bank, 40-9-27, Benz Circle Vijayawada, Rep by its
Manager.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature
of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3 Respondent in refusing to
rd
receive and register the Sale Certificate dated 20-08-2024 issued by the 5th
Respondent bank in respect of land admeasuring Ac-0- 50 cents of vacant
site situated at D No. 116/B and land admeasuring Ac-0- 50 cents of vacant
site situated at D No. 116/B-1 of Nallapadu Sub-District, Pathuru Gram
Panchayat area, Guntur District by insisting payment of stamp duty by
calculating duty on present market value of the property instead of sale
consideration mentioned in the sale certificate as being illegal, arbitrary,
contrary to settled position of law and violative of the law laid down by this
Hon ble Court and consequently and direct the 3'^'^ Respondent to receive and
register the Sale Certificate dated 20-08-2024on its presentation, by collecting
stamp duty calculated on the sale consideration mentioned in the said sale
certificate.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
direct the 3rd Respondent to receive and register the Sale Certificate dated
20-08-2024 in respect of land admeasuring Ac-0- 50 cents of vacant site
situated at D No. 116/B and land admeasuring Ac-0- 50 cents of vacant site
situated at D No. 116/B-1 of Nallapadu Sub-District, Pathuru Gram Panchayat
area, Guntur District on its presentation by collecting stamp duty calculated
on the sale consideration mentioned in the said sale certificate, pending the
disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P BADRINATH
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
APHC010417732024
0?
WRIT PETITION NO: 2130Q OF 2074
Between:
Kunapareddy Leela Kumari, S/o Nageswara Rao, aged Major, Occ
Business, R/o D. No. 2/415, Viswanathapuram, Hosur Valley, Nallur
Village, Hosur-Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Registration AND Stamps Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Join Sub Registrar, Registration AND Stamps Department, Nuzvid,
Eluru District (erstwhile Krishna District).
3. Canara Bank, represented by its Authorized Officer, ARM Branch,
Governorpet, Eluru Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one
in the nature of Writ -of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd
respondent in insisting for payment of Stamp Duty, Transfer Duty and
Registration Fee on the market value of the property i.e., Rs. 1,28,05,000/- as
per the Market Value Assistance (Duty & Fee Calculator) Request No . NIL,
Dt.05.09.2024, for registration of the Sale Certificate dt.26-06-2024 issued by
the 3rd Respondent in favour of the Petitioner despite the actual sale price
being Rs.22,10,000/- (Twenty Two Lakh Ten Thousand Only), as illegal,
arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to receive and register the sale
certificate dt.26-06-
2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent in favour of the
Petitioner upon payment of the Duty and Fee for the value as mentioned in
in the sale certificate without insisting on the market value of the property and
release the same to the Petitioner.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
direct the 2nd Respondent to receive and register the sale certificate dt.26-
06-2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent in favour of the Petitioner upon
payment of the Duty and Fee for the value as mentioned in the sale certificate
without insisting on the market value of the property.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND
STAMPS
APHC010417702024
WRIT PETITION NO: 21301 OF 2024
Between:
Dutta Ravi Shankar, S/o Ramachandra Rao, aged about 45 years,
Occ: Business, R/o D. No. 5-34, Dutta Seeta Ramaiah Road, Seeta
Mahalakshmi Nursing Home, Bapulapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna
District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Registration and Stamps Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Nuzvid,
Eluru District (erstwhile Krishna District).
3. M/s Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securatisation Company Limited,
registered ARC, represented by Its authorized officer, having office at
D. No. 1-55
4th floor. Raja Praasadamu, Masjid Banda Road,
Kondapur, Hyderabad.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting
for payment of Stamp Duty, Transfer Duty and Registration Fee on the
market value of the property i.e., Rs. 2,94,07,840/- as per the Market Value
Assistance (Duty & Fee Calculator) Request No. NIL Dt. 12.09.2024, for
registration of the Sale Certificate dt.30-03-2024 issued by the 3rd
Respondent in favour of the Petitioner, despite the actual sale price being
Rs.70,50,000/- (Seventy Lakh Fifty Thousand Only), as illegal, arbitrary and
violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of Indian and consequently
direct the 2nd Respondent to receive and register the sale certificate dt.30-
03-2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent in favour of the Petitioner upon
payment of the Duty and Fee for the value as mentioned in the sale certificate
without insisting on the market value of the property and release the same to
the Petitioner.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
Direct the 2nd Respondent to receive and register the sale certificate dt.30-
03-2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent in favour of the Petitioner upon
payment of the Duty and Fee for the value as mentioned in the sale certificate
without insisting on the market value of the property.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND
STAMPS
The Court made the following Common Order:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
W.P.Nos. 30631,31434 of 2023
and
W.P.Nos.7260. 20542, 21300 & 21301 of 2024
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri Ms. M. Abhigna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri
P. Badrinath, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.30631 of
2023, 7260 & 20542 of 2024; Ms. Marella Radha, learned Counsel for the Writ
Petitioners in W.P.No.31434 of 2023; Sri Vevilela Srinivasa Rao, learned
Counsel for the Writ Petitioners (appearing through online) in W.P.Nos. 21300
and 21301 of 2024 and Sri Arjun Chowdary, learned Asst. Government
Pleader for Revenue.
2. All these Writ Petitions raised the same question of law arising
from similar facts.
3. The Writ Petitioners are the successful bidders in a public auction
conducted by the Respondent Banks under the provisions of Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest
Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act of 2002). In all these cases, the lending Banks
have initiated auction proceedings against the money borrowers for having
defaulted in clearing the debts. The Writ Petitioners herein are the bonafide
purchasers of the auctioned properties of the defaulters, who became the
owners of the property by virtue of being declared as successful bidders.
4. After having obtained the Sale Certificates from the respective
Banks, when the Writ Petitioners have approached the Registration
Authorities for entering the details of the Sale Certificate in the Book-1 before
the Registrar and also to register the same, the Registration Authorities have
demanded the payment of Stamp Duty and Registration Charges on the basis
of the prevailing market value but not on the basis of the purchase price as
arrived in the auction sale. Since such demand was unacceptable to the Writ
2
Petitioners herein, having been aggrieved by the refusal to note in Book-1 and
to register the respective properties based on the auction purchase amount,
the present Writ Petitions are filed.
5
This issue, is no more res Integra inasmuch as the issue is
covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.N. Devadoss Vs.
Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-lnspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438
and also the recent judgment rendered by Ld. Single Judge of this Court in
Mallikarjuna Kondapaneni and two others Us. The State of Andhra
Pradesh, Department of Stamps and Registration and three others;
W.P.No.298 of 2025, dated 20.01.2025.
6. In the above premise, these Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of
the Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.N. Devadoss's case
and in Mallikarjuna Kondapaneni's case rendered by the Ld. Single Judge of
this Court in W.P.No.298 of 2025. Registry is directed to append a copy of the
Judgment dated 20.01.2025 in W.P.No.298 of 2025 along with these Writ
Petitions. No order as to costs.
7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
Sd/- M.S.V. NAVEEN CHANDRA
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Registration and Stamps Department,
Secretariat Buildings, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Guntur
District.
2. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Nuzvid,
Eluru District (erstwhile Krishna District).
3. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, ARM Branch, Governorpet, Eluru
Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
4. The District Registrar, Guntur, Guntur District.
5. The Sub Registrar, Near Collector office. Main Road Guntur (R.O.)
Guntur District.
6. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps,
Amaravati.
7. The Manager Indian Overseas Bank, 40-9-27, Benz Circle Vijayawada.
't:- -
8. The Authorized Officer M/s Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and
Securatisation Company Limited, registered ARC, having office at D.
No. 1-55, 4th floor. Raja Praasadamu, Masjid Banda Road, Kondapur,
Hyderabad.
9. The District Registrar, West Godavari District.
10. The Sub Registrar, D.No.5-2-10, SRO Road Palakollu, West
Godavari District.
11. The ManagepUCO Bank, Guntur Main Branch
12.
One CC to Sri. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Advocate [OPUC;
13.
One CC to Sri. P Badrinath Advocate [OPUC]
14.
One CC to M/s Marella Radha Advocate [OPUC]
15.
Two CCs to GP for Registration and Stamps, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
16. Two CD Copies
(Along with a copy of the Judgment dated 20.01.2025 in WP NO.
298 of 2025)
GSC
■ >
HIGH COURT
DATED:23/09/2025
COMMON ORDER
WP NOS. 30631, 31434 OF 2023 AND 7260, 20542, 21300 AND 21301 OF 2024 ALLOWING THE WPS WITHOUT COSTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 298/2025 ORDER:
Heard Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government for Stamps & Registration appearing for all the Respondents
2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:
"It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4'hrespondent, Sub-Registrar, Tirupathi RO, in directing the petitioners to pay the stamp duty (@6.5%) and registration fee (@1%) on market value of the property instead of the Value of the Sale Certificate/Auction Value of Rs.2,17,50,000/- as the same is contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary and violative of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and seeking a consequential direction to the 4'Vespondent Sub-Registrar, Tirupathi RO to receive, register and release the Sale Certificate/Deed of Sale executed by the Canara Bank in favour of the petitioners in respect of the property bearing Shop Nos.001 Part, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 313A, 314 and 501 of Central Park Commercial Complex together with undivided share of land admeasuring 247.46 Sq Yards along with 35% of Parking situated in Tirupathi Town, Municipal 13'^ward, Reddy and Reddy Colony area. No.29 Village Accounts, Tirupathi Urban Mandal,Tiruapthi Sub-District, Sri Balaji Registration District [hereinafter referred to as the 'subject property], without insisting payment of stamp duty (@6.5%) and registration fee (@1 %) on market value of the property and by accepting the stamp duty on the Value of the Sale Certificate which is Rs.2,17,50,000/- and to pass such other and further orders."
3. The facts, as stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, are that the Specialized Asset Recovery and Management Branch of Canara Bank, Tirupati initiated the Proceedings under the provisions of Securitization and Re construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for recovery of the dues from the borrower and issued e- Auction Notice for the sale of subject property on 05.12.2024 indicating that the e-Auction would be conducted on 23.12.2024; that on the scheduled date of e- Auction i.e., on 23.12.2024, the Writ Petitioners herein have participated and were declared as successful bidders for an amount of Rs.2,17,50,000/- (upset price was fixed as Rs.2,17,00,000/-); that the Writ Petitioners have paid the EMD as well as 25% of the sale amount of a sum of Rs.54,37,500/- on the same date; that the Writ Petitioners have also complied with all the other conditions and have thereafter paid the entire auction amount to Canara Bank, Tirupati and have obtained the Sale Certificate on 30.12.2024; that the Writ Petitioners approached the Sub-Registrar, Tirupati (Respondent No.4) for registration of the Sale Certificate; whereas, the Respondent No.4 directed the Writ Petitioners to pay the stamp duty and registration fee on the market value of the subject property; that the Respondent No.4 had stated that the registration will not be permissible unless the stamp duty and the registration fee is paid on the market value of the property and not on the auction value; that the Respondent No.4 had also issued Market Value Certificate of the subject property indicating that 9 the total value of the subject property is Rs.3,65,76,500/- (Three crores sixty five lakhs seventy six thousand five hundred).
4. Having been aggrieved of the stand taken by the Respondent No.4 to the effect that the registration would be permitted only if the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee is paid on the market value as indicated in the Market Value Certificate (i.e., ? 3,65,76,500/-) but not as per the Sale Certificate issued by the Canara Bank (i.e., on ? 2,17,50,000/-), the present Writ Petition is filed.
5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that though the law is well settled on this issue, it is legally untenable on the part of the Respondent No.4 to insist for the payment of stamp duty and registration fee on the market value instead of the amount fetched in the auction sale.
6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed reliance on a Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and Ors.Vs. Marvel Financial Services Ltd., rep. by its Director Mr. P. Srinivas Chowdary and Ann : 2022 SCO Online AP 3328.
6(a). A Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court was once again compelled to deal with the batch of Writ Petitions involving the very same issue in Atkuri Venkata Krishna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (W.P.No.24898 of 2024 and batch). The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in its Final Order dated 06.12.2024 had also referred to a recent Memo issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh thereby, giving a directive to all the Officers in the Department of Registration to comply with the law declared by this Hon'ble Court. The 10 relevant portion of this Memo No.REV08-12022/11/2023-CCRA SEC-IGRS dated 29.04.2024 is usefully extracted hereunder:
"2. After careful examination of the proposals of the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh in the reference cited and in compliance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, ' the Government hereby directed that the auction value/value indicated in instruments to be taken into consideration for the proposed pending documents in the reference cited while determining the Deficit Stamp Duty and Registration Fee on the sale certificate issued under SARFEASI Act, 2002 instead of market value.
3. The Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh is requested to take necessary action in the matter accordingly."
7. Having regard to the above facts, the following issue arises for determination:
Issues:-
i. In cases where property is purchased in an auction sale in recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, whether the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee is payable on the value fetched in the auction sale or on the market value as fixed by the Registrar?
ii. Whether there is an indispensable constitutional 'duty' cast upon the executive to follow the law {ratio decidendi) that is declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 141 read with Article 144 of the Constitution of India?11
iii. What is the legal consequence if the Executive violates a binding precedent?
Issue No.1:
In cases where property is purchased in an auction sale in recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, whether the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee is payable on the value fetched in the auction sale or on the market value as fixed by the Registrar?
8. This Court has noticed that even though the law is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year 2009 itself in .VN. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-lnspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438 in para Nos. 16 to 18, the cases involving similar facts and circumstances, are being brought before this Court almost on a regular basis. This Court, by citing .VN. Devadoss's case, as a binding precedent, had already decided several similar cases. A learned Single Judge has already decided cases on similar facts by placing reliance on V.N. Devadoss'scase. Even when the State has preferred an Intra-Court Appeal, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has also confirmed the Order of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the reliance was placed on the precedent rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Article 141 of the Constitution stipulates that the law rendered/declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court would bind all the Subordinate Courts and the Executive across the Country. It would be the incumbent duty on the part of the Executive to keep track of the 'march of law' and 'follow the binding precedent' only to ensure that a citizen shall not be compelled to knock at the doors of the Writ Court once again. Unfortunately, the Officers who are of the rank of Sub-Registrar and 12 Registrar, have been constantly violating this principle of stare decisis. This doctrine mandates everyone including the subordinate courts and the executive to follow the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a binding precedent without having to apply their discretion once again. Once the law is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would be the incumbent duty, not only on the Subordinate Courts, but also the Executive across the country to scrupulously follow the said dictum in all cases of similar nature.
9. Article 300A is a constitutional right that guarantees to its citizens the right to property. Sale and purchase of immovable and movable properties by the citizens of the Country is a continuous process. In matters where properties are brought for sale under variolis circumsfances like^n attached property being sold for recovery of a debt in a Money Suit, or properties of the defaulting borrowers are brought for sale by the respective lending institutions or the properties brought for sale for recovery of statutory taxes/statutory dues, the general rules and procedures with regard to Stamp Duty and Registration Fee do not apply.
. 10.
In Shanti Devi L Singh Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Ors :(1990) 3 see 605, the Hon'ble Apex Court had explained the difference between the process of registration and process of filing documents like Sale Certificate issued by Tax Recovery Officers for the purchase of immovable property sold in a Court auction. It is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a property which is purchased in a Court auction, is not compulsorily registrable and that such Sale Certificate shall merely be filed in Book No.1 in the Registrar's Office. 13
11. In .VN. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-lnspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438, while dealing specifically with regard to the issue which is framed in the present case i.e., whether the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee should be paid on market value or on the value fetched on the property in an auction sale, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly and firmly laid down the law to the effect that the Registration Authorities cannot demand payment of Stamp Duty and Registration Fee based on market value. The Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the difference between market value and amount fetched in an auction and also the process involved in bringing a property for auction where the lending institution would obtain Market Value Certificate before notifying the property for auction. Para Nos. 16 to 18 of the said Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court are usefully extracted hereunder:
"16. Market value is a changing concept. The Explanation to sub-rule (5) makes the position clear that {sic market) value would be such as would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance. Here, the property was offered for sale in the open market and bids were invited. That being so, there is no question of any intention to defraud the revenue or non-disclosure of the correct price. The factual scenario as indicated above goes to show that the properties were disposed of by the orders of BIFR and AAIFR and that too on the basis of value fixed by Assets Sales Committee. The view was expressed by the Assets Sales Committee which consisted of members such as representatives of IDBI, debenture-holders. Government of West Bengal and Special Director of BIFR. That being so, there is no possibility of any undervaluation and therefore, Section 47-A of the Act has no application. It is not correct as observed by the High Court that BIFR was only a mediator.
17. Sale has been defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short "the TP Act"). Although the Act has not included the definition of sale. Section 2(10) of the Act defines "conveyance" as including a conveyance on sale, every instrument and every decree .14
or final order of any civil court by which property whether immovable or movable or any estate or interest in any property is transferred to, or vested in or declared to be of any other person, inter vivos, and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I or Schedule 1-A, as the case may be.
18. On the facts of the case it cannot be said that Section 47-A has any application because there is no scope for entertaining a doubt that there was any undervaluation. That being so, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The registration shall be done at the price disclosed in the document of conveyance. There is no scope for exercising power under Section 47-A of the Act as there is no basis for even entertaining a belief that the market value of the property which is the subject- matter of conveyance has not been truly set forth with a view to fraudulently evadepayment of proper stamp duty."
12. As the law has been clearly laid down in .VN. Devadoss's case (supra), Single Benches of this Court, following the said case as a precedent, have consistently allowed several Writ Petitions brought by the successful auction purchasers. The Intra-Court Appeals filed by the State were dismissed thereby confirming the Orders of the Single Benches since the said Orders were passed by placing reliance on .VN. Devadoss's case. There are already several reported Judgments on the very same issue in the law journals.
13. This discussion is being made by this Court out of sheer concern that such well settled legal issues are again being raked-up by the Executive, again and again compelling the citizens to approach this Court. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and Ors. Vs. Marvel Financial Services Ltd., rep. by its Director Mr. P. Srinivas Chowdary and Ann : 2022 SCC Online AP 3328, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, having discussed elaborately, had upheld the Order passed by the learned 15 Single Judge, directing the Registration Authorities to collect the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee only on the value that is fetched in the auction sale with a clear caveat that the Official Respondents cannot charge Stamp Duty and Registration Fee on the market value.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, as recently as in the year 2024, in State of Punjab and Ann Vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings Private Limited and Ors : 2024 see Online SC 3372,in para 20 of the said Judgment, has held as under:
"20. The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise."
15. After having considered the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, the Issue No.1 is answered by this Court holding that the Respondent Authorities (Department of Registration and Stamps) shall collect Stamp Duty and Court Fee on the value of the property as mentioned in the Sale Certificate in the present case.
Issue No.2:
Whether there is an indispensable constitutional 'duty' cast upon the executive to follow the law {ratio decidendi) 16 that is declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 141 read with Article 144 of the Constitution of India?
16. The Article 141 of Constitution of India reads as under:
"141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts - The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India."
17. The Article 144 of Constitution of India reads as under:
"Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court - All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court."
18. The Article 141 r/w 144 would lead to a categorical conclusion that the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court binds not only the Courts within the territory of India but would also bind all the authorities, civil and judicial in the territory of India and all the authorities shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. This goes without saying that the law declared by the Supreme Court, which is final by its very nature, binds the executive and the executive cannot take a view different from the law that is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in .VN. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-lnspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438 shall be adhered to by the executive namely the Department of Registration in the present case. They cannot insist on the auction purchaser to pay Stamp Duty and Registration Charges on the market value in respect of a property which has been purchased in an auction sale, if such auction is held by the Court or the Financer under the SARFAESI Act or by a Tax Recovery Officer. 17
19. The binding nature of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 read with Article 144 of the Constitution of India has been spelt out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph No. 16 in E.TSunup Vs. C.A.N.S.S.Employees Association and Another: (2004) 8 SCC 683, which reads as under;
"16. It has become a tendency with the government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of court and try to take recourse to one justification or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the Court. This tendency of undermining the Court's order cannot be countenanced. This Court time and again has emphasised that in a democracy the role of the court cannot be subservient to administrative fiat. The executive and legislature have to work within the constitutional framework and the judiciary has been given the role of watchdog to keep the legislature and executive within check. In the present case, we fail to understand the counter filed by the appellant before the Court. On one hand they say that all ' the cases of GPF have been processed and on the other hand they are not prepared to revoke the administrative order. This only shows a deliberate attempt on the part of the bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court and stick to their stand. This is clear violation of the Court's order and the appellant is guilty of flouting the Court's order."
Issue No.3:
What is the legal consequence if the Executive violates a binding precedent?
20. Before parting with this case, having regard to the frequent of recurrence of a situation of the present nature where the executive is frequently demanding payment of Stamp Duty and Registration Fee based on the market value in cases where the property has been purchased in an auction sale held either by the Court or by the Financer under the SARFAESI Act or by a Tax Recovery Officer, this Court has noticed that there is a flood of litigation in respect of the 18 present issues which are involved. This Court is coming across such cases almost on a daily basis. When the law has been clearly laid down, there is a duty cast upon the executive to follow the said law for the reason that if the said law is not followed, it compels the aggrieved party to invoke the jurisdiction of the Writ Court which is plainly avoidable. When once the law has attained finality by virtue of its declaration by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141, the executive shall dutifully abide by such law as per Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The Principle of 'stare decisis' is a jurisprudential concept which is founded to ensure avoidance of multiplicity of litigation by compelling everyone to follow the precedent. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court declares the law, the executive 'shall' implement the said law without any deviation or dilution or by raising any objection. The executive can only look upon the 'precedent' which is laid down by the Apex Court which is deemed to have attained finality and simply follow it. Taking a different view would only render misery to the common man compelling him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Writ Court which is plainly avoidable.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs. Union of India:
(2012) 1 see 273, while exercising the Contempt jurisdiction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the inescapable mandamus that is cast upon the executive and as an inescapable duty to comply with the law declared b the Hon'ble Apex Court. In Paragraph No.20 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under;
"20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor 19 is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of the orders of the court, even to constitute a civil contempt. Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The government departments are no exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected of the government department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making appropriate prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally not carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court's orders / would reflect the attitude of the party concerned to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice."
22. In State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari: (1961) 1 SCR 728, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the said Judgment held at para 31 as under:
"34. Before concluding, we consider it proper to draw attention to one aspect of the case. It is of the essence of the rule of law that every authority within the State including the executive Government should consider itself bound by and obey the Law. It is fundamental to the system of polity that India has adopted and which is embodied in the Constitution that the Courts of the land are vested with the powers of interpreting the law and of applying it to the facts of the cases which are properly brought before them. If any party to the proceedings considers that any Court has committed any error, in the understanding of the law or in its application, resort must be had to such review or appeals as the law provides. When once an order has been passed which the Court has Jurisdiction to pass, it is the duty of all persons bound by it to obey the order so long as it stands, and it would tend to the subversion of orderly administration and civil Government, if parties could disobey orders with impunity. If such is the position as regard private parties, the duty to obey 20 is all the more imperative in the case of Governmental authorities, otherwise there would be a conflict between one branch of the State polity viz. the executive and another branch -- the Judicial. If disobedience could go unchecked, it would result in orders of Courts ceasing to have any meaning and judicial power itself becoming a mockery. When the State Government obeys a law, or gives effect to an order of a Court passed against it, it is not doing anything which detracts from its dignity, but rather, invests the law and the Courts with the dignity which are their due, which enhances the prestige of the executive Government itself, in a democratic set-up
23. In Shri Baradakanta Mishra Ex-Commissioner of Endowments Vs. Shri Bhimsen Dixit; 1973 1 SCC 446, the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 15 of the said Judgment had held as under:
"15. The conduct of the appellant in not following the previous decision of the High Court is calculated to create confusion in the administration of law. It will undermine respect for law laid down by the High Court and impair the constitutional authority of the High Court. His conduct is therefore comprehended by the principles underlying the law of contempt. The analogy of the inferior court's disobedience to the specific order of a superior court also suggests that his conduct fails within the purview of the law of contempt. Just as the disobedience to a specific order of the Court undermines the authority and dignity of the court in a particular case, similarly the deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court, generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule of Law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law."
24. In Priya Gupta Vs. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare : 2013 11 SCC 404, the Hon'ble Apex Court, had the occasion to explain the 21 consequences of willful disobedience of the Orders of the Court by the Executive. Para Nos. 12 & 13 of the said Judgment are usefully extracted hereunder;
"12. The government departments are no exception to the consequences of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court. Violation of the orders of the Court would be its disobedience and would invite action in accordance with law. The orders passed by this Court are the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. No court or tribunal and for that matter any other authority can ignore the law stated by this Court. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working, otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and the respect for law would irretrievably suffer. There can be no hesitation in holding that the law declared by the higher court in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it. This Court also expressed the view that it had become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have a grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty are important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country, as discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law.
(Ref. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of
Customs [A\R 1962 SC 1893] and Official ■
Liquidators. Dayanand [{2008) 10 SCC 1 ; (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .) (SCC p. 57, paras 90-91)
13. These very principles have to be strictly adhered to by the executive and instrumentalities of the State. It is expected that none of these institutions should fall out of line with the requirements of the standard of discipline in order to maintain the dignity of institution and ensure proper administration of justice."
25. In the above premise, this Writ Petition is allowed. The Official Respondent No.4 is directed to register the Sale Certificate of the Writ 22 Petitioners in accordance with law by fixing Stamp Duty and Registration Fee on the value shown in the Sale Certificate i.e., Rs.2,17,50,000/ -. No order as to costs.
Directions:
26. Since this Court has been encountering a flood of cases of this nature, this Court is of the view that these instances are occurring on account of ignorance of law by the Officers who are of the rank of Sub-Registrars and Registrars. This anomaly can be cured by enlightening the concerned Officials about the development and 'march of law' in the relevant subject. It is the opinion of this Court that this requirement can be met by organizing periodical workshops or training sessions to the concerned Officials for keeping them abreast of the changes occurring in the law from time to time.
27. For achieving the above objective it would be necessary to firstly formulate a 'Legal-Module' which incorporates the necessary case-law dealing with the subject of Registration and holding symposiums or workshops or training sessions in any form for all the Officers who are involved in the Registration of Instruments by making them aware of the contents of such module. As the current era is earmarked by the explosion of 'Information- Technology', the training sessions can be conducted effortlessly through Online classes (by video-conferencing). One can easily avoid wastage of time and resources by conducting Online classes for the Officers, while achieving the desired results effectively and efficiently.
23
28. In order to give effect to the above observations, there shall be a direction to the Principal Secretary, Revenue to prepare a 'Legal-Module' in consultation . with the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh and impart the contents of such 'module' to all the Officers involved in the Department of Registration in the State in the manner indicated above. There shall be a further direction to prepare a 'Legal-Module' within four weeks from the date of uploading of this Order. Thereafter, the training sessions shall be conducted.
29. Post after eight weeks to enable the Official Respondents to submit a Report as regards the progress in implementing the above directions.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 20.01.2025 VnsA/ts