WP/27504/2005 of M. Bhupal Reddy S/o Sri Venkata Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by Executive Engineer, on 26 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner was granted lease of maintaining and running a Tollgate for thebridge at km 32/4 of Hyderabad-Karimnagar-Ramagundam road in Ranga ReddyDistrict from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2006. The corresponding lease deed wasexecuted on 27.03.2004 and was registered with the fifth respondent. The leasedeed is said to have been released, on being satisfied that proper stamp duty andnecessary registration charges were paid.

The audit party of the registration department had verified the records of the fifthrespondent and found that there is a deficit of Rs.7,05,180/- towards stamp duty anda sum of Rs.60,405/- towards registration charges on the lease deed dated27.03.2004. Thereafter, the second respondent addressed a memo dated,11.11.2005, to the first respondent to collect the deficit stamp duty of Rs.7,05,180/-and Rs.60,405/- towards registration charges from the petitioner. Consequently, thefirst respondent addressed a letter, dated 21.11.2005, to the petitioner requiring himto deposit the said amount within ten days from the date of receipt of that order, witha warning that in case the amount is not paid within that time, the Tollgate would betaken over. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings.

It is contended that the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed underthe Indian Stamp Act (for short ‘the Act’), particularly, the one prescribed underSection 41-A of the Act.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forR & B.

The lease deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner on27.03.2004 was registered and released by the fifth respondent. Section 41-A of theAct prescribes the procedure to be followed in the event of any deficiency of stampduty or registration charges being noticed, after a document is registered andreleased. In such cases, the Collector is under obligation to issue notice to theparties concerned, directing them to show cause as to why the deficit amount shallnot be collected. A reasoned order is required to be passed on consideration of theexplanation. Sub-section 2 thereof provides for an appeal to the Chief ControllingRevenue Authority. The Registrar, with whom the document is registered, has hardlyany role to play in the matter.

In the instant case, the entire procedure prescribed under Section 41-A of the Actwas given a goby. The Collector, the fourth respondent herein, did not serve anynotice, as contemplated under that provision, upon the petitioner or the firstrespondent. The fifth respondent has taken upon himself, the task of collecting theamount, without there being any adjudication by the fourth respondent, much less, ashow cause notice preceding it.

The obligation of the petitioner to pay any amount towards deficit stamp duty orregistration charges would arise, if only the fourth respondent has initiatedproceedings contemplated under Section 41-A of the Act. Inasmuch as suchproceedings have not been initiated, neither the first respondent nor the fifthrespondent is entitled to require the petitioner to pay any amount.

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated21.11.2005, is set aside. It shall be open to the fourth respondent to take necessarysteps in accordance with Section 41-A of the Act and the liability of the petitionerwould arise only on culmination of such proceedings. No costs.

______________