G. Usha Rani vs Joint Sub-Registrar-I

K.B. Siddappa, J.—This writ petition is filed for issuance of Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned notice P.No. 169/98 dated 10-6-1998 issued by the respondent to the Writ Petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioner was a successful bidder in the public auction and the bid amount was Rs. 3,45,000/-. She deposited the entire sale consideration with the Official Receiver, Chittoor. The Official Receiver executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 16-3-1998 and addressed a letter to the Respondent in Dis. No. 804, dated 16-3-1998 to register the sale deed while dispensing with his presence as per Section 88(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. A sum of Rs. 41,500/- towards stamp duty and Rs. 1,975/- towards registration fee was paid for the purpose of registration of the sale deed, on the value of the document i.e., the highest bid amount. In spite of that, a notice is given to pay the deficit stamp duty and registration fee and determined the market value at Rs. 11,56,500/-. On this amount the Court fee (sic. stamp duty) was determined as Rs. 97,280/- and registration fee of Rs. 4,060/- and according to the respondent the petitioner has to pay the balance amount of stamp duty and registration fee.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a curt sale and the sale deed was executed by the Official Receiver. In such a case, there is no question of deficit Court fee. The value shown in the document is the proper market value. The respondent cannot code (sic. go) behind the document and assess the market value as Rs. 11,56,500/-. Further the respondent has no jurisdiction to determine the deficit stamp duty and registration fee. It is only the District Collector could decide as to the deficit stamp duty and registration fee by virtue of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

I entirely agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel. The Joint Registrar, Chittoor, has no jurisdiction to issue notice. If at all there is any deficiency he should refer the document to the Collector and the District Magistrate u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Further the authorities including the District Collector cannot determine the market value on the document in question; the bid amount is mentioned in the document; that is the amount which is assessable for stamp duty and also for registration fee as held in M. Venkata Ramana Vs. Collector and District Register, Hyderabad Dist. and Another, and in Bharatia Pulverisers Private Limited, Kommuguda, Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad Dist. Vs. Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Asifabad, Adilabad and Another, .

In view of the legal position the notice is quashed. The respondent is directed to register the document forthwith on the value shown on the document

With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.