The Subregistrar, vs Dhanraj Soni,
2024 Latest Caselaw 2449 Tel

Telangana High Court

The Subregistrar, vs Dhanraj Soni, on 28 June, 2024

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                            AND
          THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
                              Writ Appeal No.435 of 2016
JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government

Pleader for the State of Telangana appears for the appellants.

Mr. Aly Ahmed Basith, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. In view of the prayer made, learned counsel for the

appellants is permitted to implead the State of Telangana as an

appellant. Let this be done during the course of the day.

3. This intra court appeal is filed against order dated 02.02.2015,

passed by a learned Single Judge by which writ petition filed by the

respondent viz., W.P.No.16523 of 2012 has been allowed.

4. Learned Single Judge has inter alia held that the stamp duty is

payable only on a small share of the land in issue measuring Ac.0.01

guntas. The appellants have been directed to refund the excess

stamp duty collected from the respondent (writ petitioner) after

adjusting the stamp duty payable on Ac.0.01 guntas of land bearing ::2::

Survey Nos.65, 70, 71 and 72 of Jeedimetla Village, Qutubullahpur

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue

involved between the parties is no longer a res integra and has been

answered by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in

T.G.Thimmaiah Chetty v. The District Registrar, Kurnool 1

6. The aforesaid submission is disputed by learned Special

Government Pleader.

7. However, on perusal of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge as well as the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra

Pradesh High Court, it is evident that the issue involved in this

intra court appeal has already been answered by the Full Bench of

the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The conclusion arrived at by the

learned Single Judge is in consensus with the view taken by the Full

Bench of this Court.

1 AIR 1986 AP 14 ::3::

8. The amount of excess court fee shall be paid by the

appellants to the respondent within a period of eight weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today.

9. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the appeal is dismissed.

No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 28.06.2024 LUR