M G B Mobiles vs Prl.Secretary Revenue And 3 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1932 AP

       THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

                    WRIT PETITION No.41961 of 2016

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in issuing the Proceedings No.RO/Anantapuramu Doct.No. 10605/2007, dt.27.01.016 and consequential proceedings No. Endt No.B1/324/16 dated 24.3.2016, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents No.3 & 4 to delete the endorsement made on the encumbrance certificate DR Proceedings No.MV/208/2010, dt.31/8/2010 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice...".

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner

purchased an agricultural land of an extent of Ac.5-65 Cents in

Sy.No.242, 243/1C in Kakkalapalli (V&P), Anantapur Rural

Mandal, Anantapur district on 17.08.2007 under registered sale

deed vide document No.10605/07 from the rightful title holders,

on payment of sale consideration of Rs.17,15,000/- at the rate of

Rs.3,03,500/- per acre. After purchasing the said land, the

petitioner made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Anantapur on 24.09.2007, requesting for conversion of

Agricultural Land into Non-agricultural land on which the

Revenue Divisional Officer issued a demand notice directing the

petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,84,020/- towards conversion

fee, basing on the market value certificate issued by the 4th

respondent-Sub Registrar herein, on 24.09.2007 and as well as

the subsequent market value certificate dated 11.04.2008.

3. In pursuance of the said demand notice, the

petitioner has also deposited the conversion fee on 24.09.2007 in

the State Bank of India, Anantapur under Challan No.30086.

Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 29.09.2007; the competent

authority converted the said property from agricultural land to

non-agricultural land. While the matter being so, the petitioner

received a notice dated 06.09.2010 from the 3rd respondent

alleging that the Internal Audit Party has pointed out that the

said land is non-agricultural land, whereas the stamp duty paid

under the said document was insufficient as the same was paid

as if it is an agricultural land, hence a deficit stamp duty and

registration fee of an amount of Rs.7,07,420/- was directed to be

paid or to file objections, if any.

4. In response to the said demand notice, the petitioner

submitted his explanation on 25.10.10 along with the supporting

documents by stating that he has paid the stamp duty and

registration fee as per the market value certificate issued by the

respondents as on the date of the registration and also that the

land, as on the date of purchase was an agricultural land only

and as such the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur District

has also accorded permission for the same vide proceedings

dated 29.09.2007, converting the land from agricultural property

to non-agricultural property.

5. Thereafter, the respondents issued another notice

dated 29.11.2010, again calling for an explanation from the

petitioner, wherein it is mentioned as follows:

"Note :- Your representation letter received on 27.10.2010, but your representation not considered, because this document was detected by the audit party as per the High Court orders in CC.No.325/2010 filed in W.P.No.9338/2009 with the endorsement of The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Memo No.MV3/6246/2010 dated 13.10.2010."

6. Subsequently, when the petitioner verified

W.P.No.9338/2009, he came to know that the said Writ Petition

was filed by some third parties against the 4th respondent for not

releasing the sale deed dated 16.10.2004, bearing P.No.358/2004

for non-payment of deficit stamp duty and further stated that the

facts of the present case are totally different to the writ petition

referred in the said notice.

7. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner

appeared through his counsel and submitted his explanation

once again on 09.12.2010. Thereafter, the respondents have

failed to pass any final orders. While so, when the petitioner

obtained the encumbrance certificate on 28.10.2013 for the

purpose of obtaining loan from the bank, he found in the

encumbrance certificate as follows:

"This document link Doct. Note:- An amount of Rs.7,07,420/- is due to the Govt. Towards arrears of Revenue U/Sec 41(A) D.R. proceedings No.MV/208/2010 dated 31.08.2010".

8. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner filed

P.L.C. on 28.12.2013 on the file of the District legal Services

Authority, Anantapur, which was ultimately closed on

03.07.2015 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the

petitioner filed W.P.No.27740/2015 before this Court challenging

the action of the respondents in enhancing the market value and

thereby demanding to pay the difference of stamp duty and

registration fee of Rs.7,07,420/- as illegal and arbitrary, which

was disposed of on 31.08.2015, wherein it is held as follows:

"...The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to inspect the audit objections, based on which notice is issued and if the petitioner so desires, he may file a supplementary explanation/representation against the said notice and

thereafter, the Registrar/3rd respondent shall consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law..."

9. As per the direction of this Hon'ble Court, the

petitioner submitted his representation dated 16.09.2015 to the

3rd respondent herein, requesting him to furnish the copies of

internal audit report in order to submit a detailed explanation.

But the 3rd respondent, instead of supplying the said documents

as requested by the petitioner in pursuance of the orders passed

by this Court, have issued proceedings dated 27.01.2016 behind

the back of the petitioner which was not even communicated to

the petitioner. However, the petitioner submitted a detailed

representation on 08.03.2016 in pursuance of the orders passed

by this Court in W.P.No.27740 of 2015, which was simply

rejected on 24.03.2016 by saying that the representation was not

convincing and in the said rejection order, it was mentioned that

the final orders passed by the office vide proceedings dated

27.01.2016, holds good and sustainable as per law.

10. The case of the petitioner is that, only then the

petitioner came to know that his earlier representations were

rejected on 27.01.2016 without even looking into his

representation dated 16.09.2015 and as well as 08.03.2016 as

directed by this Court in W.P.No.27740 of 2015, challenging

which the present writ petition is filed.

11. No counter is filed by the respondents, but, however,

the learned Government Pleader had submitted a copy of the

instructions of the Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Anantapur wherein it is

stated that, the deficit stamp duty of an amount of Rs.7,07,420/-

was demanded by the respondents as the same was pointed out

in the audit conducted by the District Registrar, Anantapur.

12. It appears that the schedule property, as on the date

of purchase by the petitioner was admittedly an agricultural

property as the petitioner's vendor was cultivating ground nut

crop at that time and accordingly, the petitioner paid the stamp

duty treating it as a agricultural land and the same was also

registered by the Sub-Registrar basing on the market value

certificate as on the date of the said purchase. Thereafter, as the

petitioner intended to use the scheduled property for non-

agricultural purposes and made an application seeking

conversion, permission for which was also accorded by the

Revenue Divisional Officer on payment of conversion fee vide

proceedings dated 29.09.2007. If at all the said property is a non-

agricultural property as on the date of purchase by the petitioner,

there is no necessity for the petitioner to further make an

application seeking conversion and pay the conversion fee of

Rs.1,84,020/-.

13. The said act itself proves that the scheduled land was

admittedly an agricultural land as on the date of purchase by the

petitioner and thereafter, the 3rd respondent, instead of supplying

the copies of internal audit report, as directed by this Court in

W.P.No.27740 of 2015, in pursuance of the representation made

by the petitioner on 16.09.2015, has passed the impugned orders

dated 27.01.2016 behind the back of the petitioner, which is

admittedly illegal and in violation of the principles of natural

justice and also contrary to the orders passed by this Court in

W.P.No.27740 of 2015.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner, also relied

upon the judgment reported in 1996 (1) ALT 335, wherein the

Court held as follows:

"A perusal of Section 47-A shows that it is only the market value which is to be determined and that the potential value based on nature of the land and the future possibilities, is irrelevant. How the purchaser may put it to use subsequent to the purchase or develop the land is of no consequence for valuing the land as on that date. Moreover the price at which the transaction was concluded between the petitioner and his vendor being at arms length generally denotes the market value by itself, unless there is evidence to show that the said value was either a fancy price or a concession

granted because of certain relationship between the parties to the transaction."

The principle laid down in the judgment reported in

1996 (1) ALT 335 has been followed in various judgments and as

well as a reported judgment in 2013 (3) ALT 33.

15. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed by

setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 27.01.2016 and as

well as the consequential proceedings No. Endt No.B1/324/16,

dated 24.03.2016. Consequentially, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4

are directed to delete the endorsement made on the encumbrance

certificate DR Proceedings No.MV/208/2010, dated 31.08.2010

16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall

be no orders as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any,

shall also stand closed.

____________________________________ SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA GSS.

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

Writ Petition No. 41961 of 2016

GSS