IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.11471 of 2014 Between:
Abbas Hussain, S/o. Mohammed Hussain, Aged 44 years, R/o. 1-1-252/42, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.11471 of 2014 ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that an Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney was entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent on 09.07.2007. Contending that the said Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney is not honoured by the third respondent, the petitioner instituted O.S.No.464 of 2007, on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit was for specific performance. On the ground that the Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney, dated 09.07.2007, was not properly stamped, the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, passed orders on 03.02.2011 sending the Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney to the District Registrar of Assurances, Hyderabad South, Hyderabad (2nd respondent) for the purpose of determination and collection of stamp duty and penalty. Thereafter, the District Registrar passed orders on 15.05.2012 in File No.2069/E-val/2012, fixing the stamp duty payable as Rs.20,04,000/- and penalty amount as Rs.2,04,00,000/- and directed the petitioner to pay, by way of a notice, dated 15.05.2012. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner instituted W.P.No.24799 of 2012. This Court remanded the matter to the second respondent with a direction to consider the matter afresh in the light of the objections filed by the petitioner on 13.06.2011 and also by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to present his case before issuing proceedings for impounding. The District Registrar directed the petitioner to represent his case before him in person or through the counsel on 17.11.2012. The petitioner appeared before the District Registrar on 18.02.2013 and requested for some more time to file some more documents and the matter was adjourned to 15.03.2013. Even on 15.03.2013, the petitioner did not turn up and ultimately by letter No.2069/E- validation/2012, dated 07.07.2013, the District Registrar recorded non-compliance of the orders of the Collector and District Registrar by the petitioner and re-submitted the original document to the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Challenging the said proceedings, this writ petition is instituted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner made elaborate submissions contending that the stamp duty determined and the penalty amount determined by the District Registrar was erroneous contrary to the principle of law and contrary to the Government orders.
3. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, Sri V. Hariharan, contended that the order of the 2nd respondent fixing the stamp duty and penalty is just and proper and in accordance with the rules and regulations. The petitioner has to blame for himself for not appearing before the District Registrar when time was fixed at his instance and the petitioner had been dragging the matter on one count or other without coming into the witness box. These are all matters to be considered. However, both the learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents submit that instead of returning the document to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not appear, the District Registrar ought to have considered the material available on record and ought to have taken a decision regarding the amount that is payable as stamp duty and the penalty that can be imposed.
4. Having regard to the submissions made, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the District Registrar of Assurances, Hyderabad (South), Hyderabad (2nd respondent) to take a decision with reference to the amount of stamp duty and penalty payable by the petitioner regarding the document, which is sought to be impounded by duly complying with the order of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.765 of 2007 in O.S.No.464 of 2007, dated 03.02.2011, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 26th August, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.11471 of 2014 Date: 26th August, 2014 KL