Decided on March 12,1992

GOVT.OF A.P. Respondents


B.Subhashan Reddy - (1.)This is a writ petition complaining of gross inaction of the third respondent herein in releasing the document No.P-172/1988 which is a Deed of Exchange and presented for registration and which was referred under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act as amended by the Act of Andhra Pradesh.
(2.)It is stated by Mr. P.Sriraghu Ram, the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the adjudication being made by the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad in his proceedings No.Gl/MV/1884 da ted 27-3-1991 and inspite of the fact that the said order has become final the above document which was kept as pending registration, is not being released by the third respondent herein and that there is absolutely no reason or justification in withholding the said document.
(3.)When I posed a question to Mr. Srirnghuram as to whether the said order dated 27-3-1991 passed by the District Revenue Officer had become final, he emphatically says that as per the instructions from the petitioner apart from the statement on oath by the petitioner at page No.3, to the effect that the said order had become final. I do not see any reason or justification for this third respondent to hold up the document inspite of the fact that the adjudicating authority under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, has said that the requisite stampduty on the basis of compensation of market value at Rs.900/-per square yard was infact paid by the petitioner. The action of the third respondent in retaining the document for this long inspite of the orders being passed by the competent authority and the said orders becoming final is arbitrary and illegal. None of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act invest the third respondent with such a right or authority to hold up the document as he pleases. It is a right of the claimants to thedocument to have hisdocumentreleased from the registering authority as soon as either the adjudication is made or the deficiency stamp duty is paid. In the instant case, it is categorically held by the adjudicating authority that there is nothing payable. I have to say that the action of the third respondent in holding up the document still is in excess of his authority and is arbitrary, infracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The document bearing No. P-172/1988 (Deed of Exchange) dated 14-7-1988 shall forthwith be released by the third respondent to the petitioner on receipt of this order.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.