- (1.)Heard learned counsel for the parties. By consent, this appeal is heard for final disposal at the stage of admission. Learned AGA submits that he has instructions to confine challenge to the observations made in the concluding paragraph 9 of the order dated 3.12.10 passed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P. No. 5068/09. Paragraph 9 reads thus:
While disposing of this writ petition in the aforesaid manner, the Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Secretary, Revenue Department, who is directed to circulate this among all the District Registrars in the State with direction that they shall not indulge in fixing the market value of the property contrary to the notified Government Value and at no point of time the valuation that should be arrived at by them should be in excess of the notified Government value.

(2.)After inviting our attention to the aforesaid observations, learned AGA submits that these observations are not consistent with the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and the rules framed thereunder and the observations made in the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others vs. Mohabir Singh, 1996 AIR(SC) 2994, the Judgment of the Madras High Court in Collector of Nilgiris at Ootacamund vs. M/s. Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd., 1982 AIR(Mad) 138 and the judgment of this Court in Sri R. Umaprasad vs. Deputy Commissioner for Detection of and under Valuation of Stamps and Others, 2004 2 KCCR 883.
(3.)The writ petition was filed by the respondents challenging the order dated 13.12.00 passed by the Sub-Registrar (R-2) and the order dated 15.12.2005 passed by the District Registrar (R-1). Respondent no. 2, vide his order, fixed market value of the property that was subject matter of the instrument and accordingly demanded the stamp payable thereon within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The respondent No. 1, vide his order, further enhanced the market value of the property and directed to pay stamp as indicated in the order. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the writ petition was filed by the first respondent.