The District Registrar vs Maddula Mahendra Avinash
2021 Latest Caselaw 5277 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                          C.R.P.No.823 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioners had purchased a property in a public auction

conducted under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI

Act') for a sum of Rs.75,10,100/-. Subsequently a sale certificate to that

effect was also given to the petitioners, and the same was presented for

registration before the Joint Sub-Registrar, Kavali. As there was a

difference between the value calculated by the Joint Sub-Registrar and

the value shown in the sale certificate, the issue was referred to the

District Registrar of Assurances, Nellore under Section 47-A of the Indian

Stamp Act, 1899. By an order dated 23.12.2020, the District Registrar of

Assurances, by his proceedings No.G1/2035/2020 dated 23.12.2020,

directed the Joint Sub-Registrar, Kavali, to register the sale certificate on

the basis of the value of Rs.2,53,07,580/- and to collect deficit stamp duty

and deficit registration fee. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent

had filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2021 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, who

allowed the appeal on 19.04.2021 holding that the registration authorities

should collect stamp duty and registration charges only on the value of

Rs.75,10,100/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the registration authorities have filed

the present civil revision petition before this Court.

Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration relies upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.N. Devadoss vs. Chief 2 RRR,J C.R.P.No.823 of 2021

Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and ors.,1 and a judgment

of the High Court of Bombay in Pinak Bharat & Co., and anr., vs. Anil

Ramarao Naik2 and contends that the registration and stamp duty are to

be calculated on the higher of the valuations shown either in the sale

deed or according to the record maintained by the registration

department.

Sri T. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri

T. Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above as well as the judgments

of this Court in W.P.No.19768 of 2020 dated 02.11.2020; W.A.No.15 of

2021 dated 31.03.2021; and a judgment of the erstwhile High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.17600 of 2011 and W.P.No.32791 of 2013

dated 24.01.2014. He also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of A.P. vs. Devi Sea Foods Limited, in

S.L.P.(C).No.13911 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021.

The reference to the District Registrar was made under Section 47-

A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.N.

Devadoss vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and

ors., had considered the ambit and scope of Section 47-A and held that

the provisions of Section 47-A would be applicable only where there is

wilful under valuation of the subject property with fraudulent intention to

evade payment of stamp duty.

In the present case, the sale had been conducted by way of a

public auction under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and there is no

finding of any nature in the order of the District Registrar to hold that

there was any wilful under valuation of the subject property under the

(2009) 7 SCC 438

(2019) SCC Online Bom 527 3 RRR,J C.R.P.No.823 of 2021

sale. In such circumstances, the exercise of jurisdiction by the District

Registrar is itself without authority of law.

Apart from the above reason, a learned Single Judge of the

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had gone into the issue whether

sales conducted by way of public auction can be brought under the

purview of Section 47-A. The learned Judge after considering the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above, and the other

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the question of

valuation and review of such valuation under Section 47-A cannot be

raised in cases where sales are conducted by way of public auction.

I am in respectful agreement with the said view enunciated by the

learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration had also relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Pinak Bharat

& Co., and anr., vs. Anil Ramarao Naik. A perusal of this judgment

would show that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay had also held that

where a Court, after being satisfied with the valuation in execution of a

decree, goes through with a public auction, such a valuation is not open

to question by the adjudicating authority. The said judgment does not

assist the case of the revenue.

For all the aforesaid reasons, this civil revision petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous

petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

16th December, 2021 Js.

                          4                            RRR,J
                                       C.R.P.No.823 of 2021




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




                C.R.P.No.823 of 2021




                16th December, 2021
Js.