Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3875 AP
Judgement Date : 14 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.15826 of 2023
Between:-
Suryadevara Leela Rani .... Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Stamps & Registration Department,
represented by its Principal Secretary
& 4 others .... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.P.Badrinath
Counsel for the respondents : Learned Government Pleader
for Stamps & Registration
Mr.Sreedhar Valiveti
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the
respondent No.3 in not receiving and registering the Sale Certificate dated
16.6.2023 in respect of the land admeasuring an extent of 1000 Sq. Yards
situated in D.No.77/1, nearest D.No.19-16-16/10, Patta No.1053,
R Agraharam within the limits of Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur
Sub-District, Guntur District, by insisting payment of stamp duty calculated
on the basis of the present Market Value instead of calculating the duty on
the basis of sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Certificate, as illegal
and arbitrary etc., and for a consequential direction to the
3rd respondent to receive and register the said Sale Certificate and to pass
such other orders.
2. The facts of the case, as per the averments made in the Writ Petition
in brief, may be stated thus:
The petitioner herein is emerged as highest bidder, pursuant to a
public auction conducted by the 5th respondent Bank under the provisions of
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "SARFAESI Act") in respect of the land
belonging to M/s Lakshmi Narayana Syndicate, which committed default in
repayment of loan. The petitioner participated in the public auction and was
declared as highest bidder for a total sale consideration of Rs.40,25,000/-
for the land admeasuring 1000 Sq. Yards situated at D.No.77/1 nearest Door
No.19-16-16/10, Patta No.1053, R Agraharam within the limits of Guntur
Municipal Corporation, Guntur Sub-District, Guntur District. The sale
consideration was calculated according to the Market Value existing at the
time of the auction. The petitioner initially paid 25% of the amount and
obtained Sale Confirmation Letter dated 2.6.2023 and further conducted title
check. Thereafter, the petitioner paid entire amount and the Bank issued
Sale Certificate dated 16.6.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner had taken
possession of the subject matter property and when the petitioner sought to
present the Sale Certificate before the 3rd respondent for registration, the
same was not received on the premise that Stamp
Duty has to be paid on the Market Value of the subject matter property and
not on the basis of the sale consideration mentioned in the certificate.
The petitioner made representations to the respondent authorities and tried
to persuade the 3rd respondent that the approach adopted by him is
incorrect and contrary to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and further
that in respect of Sale Certificates issued by the Banking institutions, Stamp
Duty has to be calculated on the sale consideration mentioned in the
Certificate and not on the present day Market Value. However, the attempts
of the petitioner yielded no positive response. As the action of the
3rd respondent in refusing to receive and register the Sale Certificate and
demanding pay amount of higher amounts under the guise of deficit Stamp
Duty is not sustainable in law and contrary to the provisions of Indian Stamp
Act, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief.
3. Heard Mr.P.Badrinath, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Also heard Assistant Learned Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr.Sridhar Valiveti, Learned
Standing Counsel representing the 5th respondent-Bank.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the insistence on
the part of the registration authorities for payment of Stamp Duty on the
subject matter property based on their records/Market Value, instead of
value mentioned in the Sale Certificate is not sustainable in Law. He submits
that the issue in this regard is no longer „res integra‟ and contends that
when a property is purchased in a public auction under the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act, the Stamp Duty payable for registration has to be determined
by taking the valuation mentioned in the Sale Certificate into account, but
not on the basis of the Market Value/as per the records of the revenue
authorities. Referring to the decisions in W.P.No.32791 of 2013 & batch
dated 24.01.2014 and I.A.No.1 of 2022 in/and W.A.No.17 of 2022 &
W.A.No.22 of 2022 (State of A.P. v. Marvel Financial Services Limited)
dated 18.10.2022, the Learned Counsel would submit that the matter is
squarely covered by the said decisions and the Writ Petition deserves to be
allowed, as prayed for.
5. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration
states that the sale will be governed by Section 47-A of the Schedule-1A of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and not Article 16 of the said Schedule and
Stamp Duty and Registration fee should be levied on the Market Value or the
auction value, whichever is higher.
6. In view of the Legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the
Writ Petition.
7. Marvel Financial Services Limited, is a case wherein, a Division
Bench of this Court was dealing with two State appeals i.e., Writ Appeal
No.17 of 2022 preferred against an Order of a learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.15400 of 2018 dated 24.01.2020 with a delay of 627 days in filing
the appeal. W.A.No.22 of 2022 was preferred against the Order of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20142 of 2021 dated 14.09.2021 allowing
the said Writ Petition in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.15400 of 2018,
wherein, the writ petitioner i.e., Marvel Financial Services Limited, purchased
a property in an auction conducted by Tata Capital Financial Services Limited
under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Sale Certificate was issued
in its favour and when the same was presented for registration, the
concerned authorities refused to register it inter alia stating that the stamp
duty has to be paid on the market value, but not on the value mentioned in
the Sale Certificate, since the market value was much higher than the value
mentioned in the Sale Certificate. A learned Judge allowed the said Writ
Petition relying on the Common Order dated 24.01.2014 passed in
W.P.No.17600 of 2011 & 32791 of 2013 (Indian Bank, ARM Branch,
Coimbatore v. Sub-Registrar, Nagari Mandal; K.S.Devarajan v. State of A.P.),
holding that the valuation mentioned in the Sale Certificate would be the
criteria to determine the stamp duty payable for registration and that the
writ petitioner is not required to pay the stamp duty on the basis of the
market value fixed by the authorities.
8. In the appeals referred to supra, it was argued on behalf of the
appellants/State that the value shown in the Sale Certificate is different from
the market value and cannot be the criteria to determine the stamp duty.
While making other submissions, it was contended that the orders under
appeal are not sustainable. The Hon‟ble Division Bench while concurring with
the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge, was not inclined to
interfere with the order in W.P.No.15400 of 2018, passed in the light of the
opinion expressed in the judgment of Indian Bank referred to supra. It is
apposite to extract the relevant portion of the order which reads
as follows:
"8........In the matter of Indian Bank, the learned Judge discussed the law in extensio to hold that if the sale certificate is issued by the Court or officer authorized by the Court, any further deed of transfer is not required and that while undertaking registration of the document in relation to the property purchased in an open auction conducted by the bank, the valuation mentioned in the sale certificate shall alone be the criteria to determine the stamp duty payable for registration. It was also observed that when auction is conducted in pursuance to the statutory mandate by the Court or State or instrumentality of the State, no intention to manipulate the stamp duty and undervaluing the property can be inferred, more particularly, when the same is confirmed in an open auction. Having relied upon the said order, the learned Single Judge, while deciding W.P.No.15400 of 2018, has rightly opined that when the sale certificate was issued under the authority of Central enactment, i.e., SARFAESI Act, the value set forth in the said document cannot be doubted and it can be taken as market value of the property for the purpose of registration."
9. Further, the Hon‟ble Division Bench dealt with provisions of Indian
Stamps Act i.e., Section 47-A(6) and Rule 8(5) of the Rules, 2002,
extensively and expressed in categorical terms that Rules of 2002 provide
for sufficient guidelines for fixing the valuation of the property put for
auction sale and therefore the value mentioned in the Sale Certificate issued
in favour of the auction purchaser consequent upon auction under the
SARFAESI Act, cannot be presumed to have been fixed at a lesser rate by
under valuing the sale value of the property. The Hon‟ble Division Bench in
the ultimate analysis of the matter and also by referring to the orders dated
23.09.2021 passed in SLP(C) No.13911 of 2021 (The State of A.P., v. Devi
Sea Foods Limited), dismissed the Writ Appeals.
10. In view of the above binding precedent of the Hon‟ble Division Bench,
the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner merits
acceptance and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondent-
authorities are directed to receive the document presented by the petitioner
for registration based on the value mentioned in the Certificate of Sale,
register and release the same, within a period of two (2) weeks from the
date of presentation of the document, if the same is otherwise in compliance
with the Provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act,
1908. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 14.08.2023
IS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
W.P.No.15826 of 2023
Date: 14.08.2023
IS
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!