In case of Agreements of sale in respect of open lands and no constructions are existing thereon, it is only Article 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, applies but not Article 6(B) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

 Syed Tajuddin vs The State Of Telangana on 13 November, 2024

         * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                   + Writ Petition No.5918 of 2024

     13.11.2024

 

Between:

 

Syed Tajuddin                                         Petitioner

                                 Vs.

 

The Principal Secretary, Stamps and

Registration, Secretariat, Hyderabad

Telangana State & others.

                                                     Respondents

 

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

 

              WRIT PETITION No.5918 of 2024

 

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in fixing the stamp duty of Rs.1,24,950/- and imposing three times penalty to Rs.3,74,850/- totalling to Rs.4,99,800/- on an unregistered agreement of sale dated 17.09.2020 under proceedings No.IMP/2202/2023 dated 15.02.2024 as illegal and arbitrary and also against the order in W.P.No.34006 of 2023 dated 20.12.2023 and consequently direct respondent No.2 to fix stamp duty on unregistered Agreement of sale dated 17.09.2020 as per Article 6 Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by Telangana State.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of respondents. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed suit for specific performance vide O.S.No.28 of 2003 pending on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar against one K.Chenna Reddy for specific performance. The Sub- Registrar, Mahabubnagar is defendant No.2 therein. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the IV 3 Additional District Judge while issuing notice in I.A.339 of 2023 in said O.S.No.28 of 2023 granted an ad-interim exparte injunction restraining respondent No.1 not to create any 3rd party interest in respect of the suit schedule property therein. The said injunction order was extended from time to time.

4. While things stood thus, respondent No.3 herein fixed stamp duty at Rs.1,25,000/- on an unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 17.09.2020 vide proceedings Dis.No.417 of 2023 and after deducting Rs.50/- on which agreement of sale was executed, and fixed deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,24,950/- and a penalty up to 10 times was fixed vide Letter dated 24.11.2023. The said letter was sent to IV Addl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.34006 of 2023, wherein this Court has passed the following order:

"Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions referred above, there is no dispute that the subject land as per agreement of sale is a open land and no constructions are existing and in view of the same the subject documents shall be impounded by applying Article 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act and not Article 6(B) of Schedule 1(A) of Indian Stamp Act as claimed by respondent authorities."

4

5. Learned counsel would further submit that in the above said order, the Court permitted the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.3 and directed respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders after giving a fair opportunity of hearing. In terms of orders passed in W.P.No.34006 of 2023 in the order dated 20.12.2023, petitioner has made a representation before respondent No.3. However, respondent No.3, without giving an opportunity of hearing has passed the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 and observed that the said document is an Agreement of Sale without possession and chargeable for stamp duty under Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for which 0.5% stamp duty is to be paid on above said consideration amount for the purchase of immovable property. In view of the same, petitioner was directed to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,24,950 along with penalty of Rs.3,74,850/- totalling to Rs.4,99,800/-.

6. When the matter is taken up for hearing on 06.03.2024, this Court has suspended the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 for a period of two (2) weeks. Subsequently, the said interim suspension was extended from time to time.

7. A counter has been filed by respondent No.2 who would submit that subsequent to orders passed in W.P.No.34006 of 5 2023 dated 20.12.2023, the petitioner has made a representation on 27.01.2024 and after considering the recitals of the document in question, necessary orders were passed by respondent No.3 considering the wordings of Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is further submitted that according to the provisions of Section 56 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, if the petitioner is otherwise aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner has alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for redressal of his grievance. It is therefore stated that instead of availing the said remedy, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, wherein it is stated as follows:

56. Control of, and statement of case to, Chief Controlling Revenue-authority. --

(1) The powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and Chapter V 1 [and under clause (a) of the first proviso to section 26] shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

(2) If any Collector, acting under section 31, section 40 or section 41, feels doubt as to the 6 amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case, and refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue-

authority.

(3) Such authority shall consider the case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to asses and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such decision.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 56 of the 1899 Act, the powers exercisable by the Collector are subject to the control of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and that if the Collector has any doubt with respect to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up statement to Chief Controller of Revenue Authority. In view of the same, it is the District Collector, who can only refer the case to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for ascertaining the duty to be charged for his opinion. As such the petitioner cannot prefer an appeal under Section 56 of the 1899 Act. He would further draw attention of this Court to provisions of Section 41(A) of the 1899 Act and submits that provisions of 41(A) do not apply in the present case for the reason that the petitioner himself has paid the requisite stamp duty in terms of Article 6(A) of Schedule 1- 7 A, as such Section 41(A) is not applicable to the present case. Section 41(A) of 1899 Act is extracted herein for the facility of reference;

"41-A. Recovery of Stamp Duty not levied or short levied:- (1) Where after the commencement of the Indian Stamp (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986, any instrument chargeable with duty has not been duly stamped and registered by any Registering Officer by mistake and remarked as such by the Collector or any audit party, the Collector may, within five years from the date of registration serve a notice on the person by whom the duty was payable requiring him to show cause why the proper duty or the amount required to make up the same should not be collected from him :

Provided that where the non-payment was by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the Collector may, within ten years from the date of registration, serve a notice on such person to show cause why the amount required to make up the deficit stamp duty should not be collected from him along with a penalty of three times of deficit stamp duty.

(2) The Collector or any officer specially authorised by a him in this behalf shall, after considering the representation if any, made by the person on whom notice is served under sub-section (1), determine by an order, the amount of duty and 8 penalty due from such person, not being in excess of the amount specified in the notice, and thereupon such person shall pay the amount as determined.

On payment of the amount the Collector shall add a certificate under Section 42.

(3) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (2) may prefer an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Telangana, Hyderabad within three months from the date of such order.

(4) Any amount payable under this section shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue.

10. Learned counsel would therefore vehemently submit that since the issue is pertaining to the quantum of the stamp duty, it was left open to the District Collector to decide upon the stamp duty, instead of doing the same, directed the petitioner to make a representation. However, the District Registrar without properly ascertaining the position of law has passed the impugned order.

10. This Court in W.P.No.34006 of 2023 dated 20.12.2023 extensively held the similar issues which fell for consideration at paragraph 13 which reads as follows:

"13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions referred above, there is no dispute that the subject land as per agreement of sale is a open land and no 9 constructions are existing and in view of the same the subject documents shall be impounded by applying Article 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act and not Article 6(B) of Schedule 1(A) of Indian Stamp Act as claimed by respondent authorities."

11. This Court in Shaik Jani Pasha v. The State of Telangana 1, wherein similar issues fell for consideration, held at paragraphs 6 to 9 as follows:

"6. In the case of Saranam Peda Appaiah v. S.Narasimha Reddy, a division Bench of this Court has considered the similar issue and held as under:-

"Article 6(B) is very clear in its expression that in case of any transactions relating to construction of a house etc. as mentioned in descriptive column of the instrument, the stamp duty required is Rs. 5/- for every hundred or part thereof, of the market value or the estimated cost of proposed construction or development of such property as the case may be. Therefore, the question that calls for consideration is whether the said Article covers the agricultural land also. It is a cardinal principle of the interpretation that the provision interpreted with reference to the words contained in the provisions and by interpretative process, it is neither to be expanded nor constricted. When the Legislature has specifically referred to the document relating to construction of house, apartment, flat, portion of multi-storied building etc and the stamp duty is payable on the market value or the estimated cost of the said property, it has to be confined only to houses, multi unit houses or apartment etc. Even the valuation was sought to be arrived at on the basis of the rates prescribed by the 1 2023 (3) ALD 70 10 Public Works Department authorities. Further it is noticed that the transactions left over by Article 6(B) are covered by Article 6(C). Therefore, it cannot also be said that there was vacuum in the Article. In the instant case, the agreement is after 1-4-1995, but it relates to the agricultural land. Taking the clue from the last expression in the document namely "sale of any other immovable property" it was contended that it would embrace in its fold other immovable property including the agricultural property and therefore, the stamp duty has to be paid on that basis. But, that contention cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the expression the sale of any other immovable property has to be interpreted keeping in view the principles of ejusdem generis namely where general words fallow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or classes as specifically mentioned. Otherwise, the other provisions become otiose."

7. Further, in the case of Pechitti Ramakrishna v. Nekkanti Venkata Manohara Rao and others, a learned Single Judge of this Court has considered the application under Article 6(B) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, but not under Article 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which it reads as under:-

"A careful reading of Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Act goes to show that it is applicable if the agreement relates to construction of a house or building including a multi-unit house or building or unit of apartment/flat/portion of a multi- storied building or for development/sale of any other immovable property. A further reading of the stamp duty payable specified in column No. 2 also makes it clear that this provision was introduced in relation to the construction agreements or agreements of the like nature. No doubt, emphasis was laid on the language "sale of any other immovable property".

These words "sale of any other immovable property" 11

in Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Act may have to be read along with the rest of the provision and also with column No. 2. As far as any other case specified in Article 6(C) of Schedule 1-A of the Act is concerned, it should be construed to be a case not falling under either A or B of Schedule 1-A of the Act. It is needles to say that Article 6(A) of Schedule 1-A of the Act is a general provision. It is no doubt true that in the present case, the sale consideration recited in the agreement of sale is Rs. 42,500/- and it is in relation to the sale of a vacant site. On a careful reading of the language employed in Article 6(A, B & C) of Schedule 1-A of the Act and also the stamp duty payable specified in column No. 2 and taking into consideration the object of introducing B by A.P. Act 21 of 1995, I am of the considered opinion that Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Act would be applicable only in such specified cases and the same cannot override the general provision of Article 6(A) of Schedule 1-A of the Act and agreement in question would definitely fall under the general provision of Article 6(A)(iii) of Schedule 1-A of the Act and hence, the stamp duty already paid is sufficient. It is also clarified that in the light of the nature of the document Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Act is not applicable to the present case. Hence, the impugned order holding that the stamp duty and penalty relating to the document in question is liable to be paid under Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Act cannot be sustained."

8. In the light of the above settled legal position and taking into consideration the fact that there is no dispute that the subject matter of the Agreements of sale in question is only open lands and no constructions are existing thereon, it is only Article 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, applies but not Article 6(B) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as claimed by respondent No.2, the impugned notices are set aside.

12

9. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to impound the subject documents by applying Article 6(A) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, instead of Article 6(B) of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and complete the process of impounding, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

12. On a perusal of the recitals of the subject document, it is evident that the subject land is open plot i.e., agriculture land and in the agreement, there is no recitals of construction.

13. In view of all the observations made above, this Court deems it appropriate that the applicable rate of stamp duty of the document would fall under Article 6(A) of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and not under Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A as claimed by the respondent authorities, as such, the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 is hereby set aside and writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.3 viz., District Registrar, Mahaboobnagar District is hereby directed to impound the subject document i.e., unregistered sale deed dated 17.09.2020 by applying Article 6(A) of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and after completing the process of impounding, pass appropriate orders within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.

___________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 13.11.2024 

there is no express provision in the Act, empowering the Court to scrutinise the propriety of the proceedings or collection of due stamp duty by the District Registrar/Collector and especially as per the Section 42(2) of the Act, the Court shall reckon proper collection of stamp duty on the certification/endorsement of the District Registrar/Collector and shall receive the document in evidence. Thus, the Court cannot (re)impound the document on any ground, much less for improper collection of the stamp duty

 Adepu Manohar vs State Of Telangana And 2 Others

Telangana High Court · Decided on 7 March 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES

Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ · N. Tukaramji, J

RESULT

Dismissed

CASE NUMBER

Civil Revision Petition No. 2966 Of 2019

1. This Revision is directed against the order dated 12.09.2019 in I.A.No.436 of 2019 in I.A.No.23 of 2017 in C.O.S.No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Judge, Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the first defendant sought for impounding the suit agreement on the ground that the District Registrar had improperly assessed and collected the deficit stamp duty and penalty under an act of fraud, misrepresentation and bribery.

2(a) The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.10.2008. At the instance of the respondent/first defendant videI.A.No.23 of 2017, the suit agreement was forwarded to the District Registrar of Stamps, Hyderabad for impounding and collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty in I.A.No.23 of 2017.

(b) The revision petitioner/first defendant in the present petition contended that in the first instance the District Registrar in the letter dated 04.06.2018 bearing No.5875/E1/imp-2017 had appraised the dues on the entire sale consideration of Rs.7,50,00,000/- at 5%, and fixed the stamp duty at Rs.37,50,000/- and the penalty of Rs.45,00,000/-. However, the first respondent/plaintiff had managed, and submitted a representation dated 24.10.2018 stating that the possession of the property in part performance of the suit agreement was not delivered. Thereupon, the District Registrar issued another letter reducing the stamp duty to Rs.7,50,000/- and penalty of Rs.30,00,000/- and collected the same. This act of scaling down the stamp duty and penalty is glaringly reflecting the fraudulent misrepresentation and bribery especially as the recitals of the suit agreement are specifying the delivery of possession of the property.

(c) Therefore, the suit agreement is liable for the stamp duty as sale agreement with delivery of possession as per 47-A & Schedule-IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’). Thus, the suit agreement shall be impounded to address the fraud and deficit stamp duty and for collection of the due stamp duty and penalty as per the first letter of District Registrar dated 04.06.2018, else the suit agreement shall not be received in evidence.

3. The first respondent/plaintiff in counter disputed the maintainability of the petition as the deficit stamp duty and penalty was already collected by the District Registrar. Additionally pleaded that erroneous fixation of the stamp duty in the first instance was queried, on that the competent authority after due hearing and considering the aspects that only 5800 square feet out of total extent on different floors was given in possession but the same was not in direct nexus with the suit agreement, adjudicated the stamp duty and penalty. Howsoever, the petitioner/first defendant has no locus standi or any role in the process. Thus, the petition itself is misconceived and prayed for dismissal.

4. The trial Court in the impugned order while dismissing the petition, observed that collection of the deficit stamp duty is the prerogative of the District Registrar and alleged bribery cannot be considered as it is beyond the purview of the suit and the suit agreement cannot be impounded to collect the stamp duty. However, the petitioner/first defendant may avail remedies with the authorities.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the petition pleadings and vehemently contended that in the impugned order the trial Court expressed its inability to rectify the patent fraud and bribery and deliberately ignored these aspects to support the cause of the first respondent/plaintiff against the  responsibility to impound and to collect the deficit stamp duty on the document. Thus, prayed for allowing the revision.

6. In support of the claim, the petitioner placed reliance on the authority B. Rathnamala v. G. Rudramma AIR 2000 A.P. 167.

In B. Rathnamala (1st supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that Explanation I of Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Act envisages that an agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable as a Sale. On the expression of ‘followed by’, observed that even in the absence of a recital in the agreement, delivery must be contemporaneous with the execution of agreement and the possession should be intimately and inextricably connected with the agreement and on the word ‘evidencing separately’ held that in later case, in order to attract the explanation I of the Act 47A, the agreement must contain a recital of delivery of possession either prior or after the agreement.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff has asserted that the stamp duty and penalty collected by the District Registrar was proper. Further clarified that the Para 11 of the plaint is referring to the possession of small portion of the total area of the suit agreement since September, 2010 but it is not the delivery of possession as per the suit agreement. As such, no merit in the revision.

8. The respondent put-forth the following authorities:

(1) In Nukala Sailaja Devi and others v. District Registrar and others 2007(6) ALT 368. (2) In Veena Hasmukh Jain and others v. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1999 SC 807 (3) In Omprakash v. Laxminarayan and others 2014(1) ALD 83 (4) In Makineni Srinivas Rao and others v. Manthena Prabhakar Reddy 2014(6) ALD 261.

i) In Nukala Sailaja Devi and others (2nd supra), the petitioner filed written statement disputing the very execution of the agreement of sale. The Trial Court sent the document for impounding, under the relevant provisions of the Act. On the dispute raised by the defendants as to the paid stamp duty, this Court held that the defendant cannot be said to have suffered any detriment, on account of the impugned order and when the defendants are disputing the very execution of the document, it is ununderstandable as to how they can insist on payment of additional stamp duty at a higher percentage.

ii) In Veena Hasmukh Jain (3rd supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Court has to ascertain the nature and substance of the transaction effected by the instrument, to determine whether it falls within the charge of stamp duty. Further it was also held that the agreement duly signed by the parties and the witnesses, contents of the suit document made it clear that it was an agreement and not a draft agreement, therefore the instrument shall be stamped as a conveyance.

iii) In Omprakash (4th supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that for determination of the question of admissibility of a document, the recitals contained therein are not only vital but they are decisive. Hence, at the time of considering the question of admissibility of a document, it is the recitals contained in that document that would govern the entire issue. Thus, the admissibility of a document is entirely dependent upon the contents of the recitals contained in that document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to introduce the document in question.

iv) In Makineni Srinivas Rao (5th supra) it is held that in order to attract Explanation I of Article 47A of Schedule I-A of the Act, the stamp duty as conveyance the agreement must contain a recital of delivery of possession either prior to or after the agreement. The appellant denied delivery of possession, but the respondent pleaded that as registration of conveyance deed was getting delayed, possession was delivered to him. The Court considering the facts held that this is not a case where delivery of possession was in contemplation of parties at the time of execution of agreement of sale. The alleged delivery was not concurrent with the agreement and the same was due to turn of events taken place after execution of agreement of sale and at best it can be said that the delivery is in pursuance of and not following the agreement of sale.

9. In these rival contentions, the pertinent aspect for the determination would be, after the District Registrar collected deficit stamp duty and endorsed/certified the suit agreement under Section 42 of the Act, whether the Court which forwarded the document to impound, can re-impound the same document on the ground of improper assessment and collection of the stamp duty?.

10. In the given factual position, the revision petitioner/petitioner in the petition had sought interference of the Court to reimpound the document under Sections 33 and 35 of the Act.

11. Admittedly, the suit agreement was endorsed by the District Registrar to the effect that the stamp duty is collected. Thus, the prayer of the petition would amount to exercising supervisory or appellate jurisdiction to pursue the propriety of the proceedings and the order of the District Registrar. It is well settled that either the revision or the appeal is not the matter of procedure and the statute shall specify the same in clear express terms and no Court or authority can assume jurisdiction without there being statutory basis.

12. At the outset the revision petitioner did not refer to any specific legal provision empowering the Court, which forward the instrument to the District Registrar/Collector for impounding and collection of stamp duty to probe the impropriety if any in the proceedings and in collection of due stamp duty.

13. Section 33 of the Stamp Act mandates the authorized public officers including the Courts to examine every instrument chargeable with duty which is placed before them in their official function and if any insufficiently stamped instrument is found, the same shall be impounded. Section 35 of the Act contemplates that insufficiently stamped instrument cannot be admitted in evidence, unless the same is validated.

14. In the scheme of the Act, once the document is found to be impoundable, the Court or the designated public officer has to extend an opportunity to pay the deficit duty and validate the document or to send the document to the District Collector.

15. If the deficit stamp duty and penalty as provided by Section 35 of the Act is paid, the public officer or the Court is duty bound under Section 38 of the Act to send an authenticated copy collected together with certificate in writing stating that the deficit stamp duty and penalty is paid and shall also remit the collected amount to the Collector.

16. If the document is forwarded for impounding and collection of stamp duty and penalty as in this case, the District Registrar/Collector as authorised in Section 38(2) of the Act, adjudicates the proper stamp duty and if the instrument is insufficiently stamped and liable for duty, shall require the payment of proper stamp duty with penalty not exceeding ten times of the amount of the proper duty or portion thereof, as per Section 40(1)(b) of the Act.

17. Section 42 of the Act contemplates collection of the deficit portion of the stamp duty either under Sections 35 or 40 of the Act, the District Registrar/Collector or the authorised public officer, whoever impounds and collects the deficit stamp duty, shall certify by endorsement on the document that proper stamp duty and penalty has been levied. Section 42(2) of the Act prescribes that the document/instrument so endorsed shall be eligible to be admitted in evidence.

18. Further Proviso (e) of Section 35 of the Act provides where the instrument bears certification of the District Registrar/Collector as provided under Section 32 or any other provision of the Act, it is admissible in evidence.

19. Therefore, as per Section 35(e) and 42(2), the endorsement/certificate of the impounding officer or the Collector shall be conclusive proof that the instrument is duly stamped. It is apposite to note that either Section 33 or 35 Act or any other provision of the Act is extending any authority to the forwarding or impounding officer/Court to examine and determine the propriety of the charged stamp duty by the Collector/District Registrar.

20. The empowering provisions of adjudication of the stamp duty dues, collection, certification by the District Registrar/Collector and the aspects that the Court/public authority after collecting the deficit stamp shall report the same to the District Registrar/Collector and the discretion of the Collector to reconsider the penalty levied by the authorised public officer and also the absence of any revision or appeal provision in the Act, against the decision of the Collector, in assessing the duty payable on instrument are confirming that the statute has placed the Collector/District Registrar as final authority in this regard.

21. It shall also be noted that, the act of impounding the suit agreement, though initiated in the suit proceedings, the functions of impounding, collection of stamp duty, and certification are parallel independent proceedings and shall ot be considered as part of the proceedings in which the instrument is impounded. Thus, questioning the propriety of the proceedings before the District Registrar/Collector in the suit proceedings would be improper. Even if it is taken that the Court has been given authority to examine the propriety of the proceedings before the District Registrar/Collector, it should be in distinct proceedings but not as a part of the suit.

22. Further, the authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent are pertaining to classifying the suit document in a particular category and on the aspects of leviable the stamp duty on the suit document. As such, the authorities are no way helpful in resolving the core issue in this revision.

23. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered opinion that as there is no express provision in the Act, empowering the Court to scrutinise the propriety of the proceedings or collection of due stamp duty by the District Registrar/Collector and especially as per the Section 42(2) of the Act, the Court shall reckon proper collection of stamp duty on the certification/endorsement of the District Registrar/Collector and shall receive the document in evidence. Thus, the Court cannot (re)impound the document on any ground, much less for improper collection of the stamp duty. Consequently, the prayer of the revision petitioner is misconceived and unsustainable in law. In the absence of any legal and factual infirmity the impugned order deserves to be affirmed and the revision fails on merit.

24. IN THE RESULT, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this revision petition, shall stand closed.

 

Model docket in Return of Plaint - Return of Plaint by Agency Court, consequent to Hon'ble Apex Court's Judgment in Mukkera Venkata Ratnam &Ors. v. Vantasala China Venkateswarlu&Ors

 Docket Order :   -09-2026

1.     This matter is taken up to examine, as a preliminary issue, whether this Court retains subject-matter jurisdiction over the present suit, in light of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukkera Venkata Ratnam &Ors. v. Vantasala China Venkateswarlu&Ors., 2026 INSC 810 : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 772, decided on 06.08.2026.

2.     In the said decision, the Supreme Court held that Civil Courts constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate civil disputes of succession and partition concerning properties situated in Scheduled Areas, notwithstanding the notification dated 30.10.1972 (G.O. Ms. No. 1573) excluding the application of that Act to Scheduled Areas, provided the dispute is exclusively between non-tribal parties and involves no tribal interest. This is consistent with the general rule under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred.

3. The Supreme Court reasoned that the object of continuing Agency Courts under the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924 — framed under Section 6 of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874 — read with the protections under the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, is to safeguard Scheduled Tribes, their lands, and their customs from exploitation. Subjecting exclusively non-tribal parties to Agency Court procedure bears no rational nexus to that object and offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

 

4. The Supreme Court further clarified that the mere location of a property within a notified Scheduled Area does not, by itself, oust Civil Court jurisdiction where all parties before the Court are non-tribal, and that this position applies to pending suits as well as those instituted hereafter. It was equally clarified that where even one party to a dispute is a tribal residing in a Scheduled Area, the Agency Court alone continues to have jurisdiction.

 

5. Upon perusal of the pleadings and the cause title, it is seen that the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) in the present suit are all non-tribal  and that the dispute, though concerning property situated in a Scheduled Area, involves no tribal party and no fetter on tribal interest.

 

6.  In view of the law declared in Mukkera Venkata Ratnam (supra), this Court, being an Agency Court, does not possess jurisdiction to try the present suit, such jurisdiction vesting instead in the ordinary Civil Court having pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction over the subject-matter.In the circumstances, the plaint, together with all accompanying documents, is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff(s) for presentation before the competent Civil Court, under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC")

7. The defendant having entered appearance in the suit, the plaintiff is intimated, under Order VII Rule 10A(1) CPC, of this Court's decision to return the plaint. The plaintiff, present in Court, made an application under Order VII Rule 10A(2) CPC specifying the Court of the [Principal Junior Civil Judge / Principal Senior Civil Judge / Principal District Judge — as per pecuniary jurisdiction],  as the Court in which the plaint is proposed to be presented, and praying that a date be fixed for appearance of the parties before that Court

8.  In compliance with Order VII Rule 10A(3) CPC, the plaintiff and the defendant are directed to appear before the said Court on ______ Notice of this date shall issue to both parties, and, under Order VII Rule 10A(4) CPC.

9.                   It is clarified that only the plaint, together with the documents filed by the plaintiff along with it, is returned by this order. The written statement and documents already filed by the defendant, and the record of this Court, will remain on the file of this Court  and this follows from the settled position in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in M/s. EXL Careers &Anr. v. Frankfinn Aviation Services (P) Ltd., 2020 INSC 477that, on re-presentation, the suit is to be treated as a fresh plaint and the trial before the transferee Court is to proceed de novo. This is without prejudice to either party's right to apply for return or certified copies of this Court's record, or to rely afresh, before the transferee Court, on any document filed with the pleadings before this Court.The Office is directed close the suit on the pending register of this Court and mark it as "Returned for presentation before the proper Civil Court.

Date of Presentation of the Plaint: (18-03-2023 )

Name of the Party Presenting the Plaint: _______, Advocate on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Date of Order for Return of Plaint: (26-09-2026)

 

PRESIDING OFFICER/AGENT TO THE GOVERNMENT]

MODEL DOCKET PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIONS 82 & 83 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

 MODEL DOCKET PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIONS 82 & 83 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

By P.V.Kranthi Kiran, Senior Superintendent, Mahabubnagar

Disclaimer

These docket orders are provided as illustrative model templates for reference purposes only. They are not a substitute for independent judicial application of mind on the specific facts and circumstances of each individual case. Presiding officers must adapt these formats to accurately reflect the actual record of the proceedings, the specific properties involved, and any prevailing Criminal Rules of Practice or standing orders of the respective High Court.

Note: If this matter falls to be governed by the BNSS instead of the Cr.P.C. (proceedings initiated on or after 1 July 2024), the corresponding provisions are                   Ss. 84, 85, 87, 88 and 89 BNSS.

 

DOCKET 1: Receipt of Unexecuted NBW & Issuance of Proclamation (Section 82 Cr.P.C.)

Date: ___________

Ld. APP present. Accused is absent.

The Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against the accused, has been received back unexecuted with a report from the concerned police station/process server stating that the accused is not found at the given address and is deliberately evading the process of law. This Court notes that NBWs have been pending unexecuted for a considerable period, indicating a clear intention on the part of the accused to abscond. The long pendency of an unexecuted warrant itself can be sufficient to infer that the accused has absconded. The return of a warrant is not a sine qua non for initiating action under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

Having perused the record, including the unexecuted NBW and the report thereon, this Court has reason to believe and is satisfied that the accused, has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest issued against him cannot be executed.

Accordingly, the Court directs the issuance of a written proclamation under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., requiring the accused, to appear before this Court on or before {date_at_least_30_days_hence} at 10:00 AM to answer the complaint/charge.

The proclamation shall be published strictly as per Section 82(2) Cr.P.C. by: a) Publicly reading it in a conspicuous place of the town/village where the accused ordinarily resides. b) Affixing it to a conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides. c) Affixing a copy thereof to a conspicuous part of this Court-house. d) [Optional, if deemed necessary by the Court] Directing a copy of the proclamation to be published in the daily newspaper 'Eenadu' which has circulation in the area where the accused ordinarily resides.

The executing officer is directed to file a compliance report regarding the due publication of the proclamation.

Call on: _______for appearance of the accused and for the compliance report of the executing officer.

DOCKET 2: Expiry of Proclamation Period & Declaration of Proclaimed Person (Section 82(1) Cr.P.C.)

Date: _______

Ld. APP present. Accused is absent.

The date specified in the proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for the appearance of the accused, has expired today. The executing officer's report regarding the due publication of the proclamation in accordance with law has been received and taken on record. The report confirms that all statutory requirements for publication under Section 82(2) Cr.P.C. have been duly complied with. Despite repeated calls, the accused has failed to appear before this Court.

Consequently, the accused, is hereby declared a "Proclaimed Person" under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C.

As the accused continues to abscond, the prosecution is directed to furnish details of the properties, both movable and immovable, belonging to the proclaimed person to enable the Court to compel his appearance through attachment proceedings.

Call on: _________for the prosecution to furnish the property particulars of the proclaimed person.

OPTIONAL DOCKET 2A: Declaration of Proclaimed Offender (Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. - Only for specific heinous crimes)

(Note: This order is to be passed on the same day as Docket 2, or on a subsequent date, ONLY if the accused is charged with offenses explicitly listed in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., such as murder, dacoity, etc. As held in several Judgments there is a clear distinction between a 'proclaimed person' and a 'proclaimed offender', with the latter applying only to specific grave offences.)

Date: _____

PROCEEDINGS:Ld. APP present. Accused is absent.

Following the declaration of the accused, as a "Proclaimed Person" under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., this Court has conducted an inquiry into the continued non-appearance of the accused.

Upon perusal of the First Information Report (FIR No. _____) and the charges framed/allegations made against the accused, it is evident that the offense alleged against the accused falls under Section {list_specific_ipc_section, e.g., 302, 395, 396, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459, 460} of the Indian Penal Code, which is explicitly covered under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the accused, {name_of_accused}, is hereby formally declared a "Proclaimed Offender".

Call on: _____ for the prosecution to furnish the property particulars of the proclaimed offender.

DOCKET 3: Receipt of Police Report on Property & Order of Attachment (Section 83 Cr.P.C.)

Date: ________

PROCEEDINGS:  Ld. APP present. Accused is absent.

The Court has perused the report of the Station House Officer, ______, dated _____ disclosing that property belonging to the proclaimed person/offender, (name of accused), is available and traceable at _____village, ___ Mandal, _______District. The report provides adequate particulars of the property, including its extent, boundaries, and clear nexus to the accused.

This Court has already directed the publication of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and declared the accused a proclaimed person/offender. For the reasons recorded to compel the appearance of the evading accused, and being satisfied that resort to attachment is warranted, this Court hereby orders the attachment of the scheduled property under Section 83(1) Cr.P.C.

The scheduled property is described as: Immovable Property:(description of immovable property with survey no etc)}

Movable Property (if any):{description of movable property}

As the scheduled property is immovable, the executing officer, the Station House Officer, _____ is directed under Section 83(4) Cr.P.C. to attach the same by a written order prohibiting the transfer or charge of the property. (if it is land revenue paying immovable property),the Warrant of Attachment shall be forwarded through the District Collector, ____, in terms of the proviso to Section 83(4) Cr.P.C., as the land pays revenue to the Government. For movable property, the SHO is directed to seize the same.

The office is directed to note the case in the Attachment Register and issue the Warrant of Attachment for execution, proclamation by beat of drum at _______ village, and affixture at a conspicuous part of the property and the village Gram Panchayat office.

Call on: ____ for the receipt of the compliance report of attachment from the executing officer.

DOCKET 4: Receipt of Compliance Report of Attachment

Date: _________

PROCEEDINGS:Ld. APP present. Accused is absent.

The Court has perused the compliance report and the enclosed panchanama submitted by the executing officer, {name_of_executing_officer}, regarding the attachment of property at {village_name} village. The report discloses that the attachment has been duly effected and proclaimed in the manner directed by this Court on {date_of_attachment}. The report is taken on record.

The office is directed to make the necessary entry in the Attachment Register and note today's date for the purpose of computing the statutory six-month period under Section 84 Cr.P.C. for claims and objections. The attached property shall remain at the disposal of the State Government, subject to any claims or objections preferred under Section 84 Cr.P.C. and further statutory provisions.

Call on: ________ for recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses nder Section 299 Cr.P.C.

 

DOCKET 5: Recording Evidence (Sec 299 Cr.P.C.) & Transfer to Long Pending Cases (LPC)

Date: _______

PROCEEDINGS:Ld. APP present. Accused is absent.

The accused,  remains absconding, and this Court is satisfied that there are no reasonable prospects of his apprehension in the near future. To prevent the object of preserving human testimony from failing due to the passage of time, and in light of the provisions of Section 299 Cr.P.C., the Court proceeds to record the statements of the available prosecution witnesses in the absence of the accused. This procedure is essential to ensure that valuable evidence is not lost, as recognized in cases like C.B.I. vs Abu Salem Ansari & Anr(2011 (4) SCC 426) and State (Delhi Admn.) vs Som Prakash @ Som Nath @ Somi (76(1998)DLT562- Delhi High Court).

(Note: Evidence of PWs is recorded. The names of witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony should be included here.)

The mandatory procedures prescribed under Sections 82, 83, and 299 Cr.P.C. have been fully complied with. The High Court has instructed that it is not conducive to the administration of criminal justice to keep old cases pending on the regular file due to the non-execution of NBWs.

Consequently, the office is directed to remove this case from the regular register and transfer it to the Register of Long Pending Cases (LPC) concerning the absconding accused, {name_of_accused}. The records of this case shall be retained for a period of 30 years from this date, after which they may be destroyed by following due process of law. The case shall be revived immediately upon the apprehension or voluntary surrender of the accused.

Consign the file to the record room.

Call on: _________(This date can be a nominal date for administrative review or left blank if the case is to be revived only upon apprehension/surrender).

 

 

 

 

Notes on Subsequent Stages

These stages are not immediate next steps but are noted here for completeness; a separate order will be required at whichever is actually reached.

1.  Claims and Objections (S.84 Cr.P.C. / S.87 BNSS): any person other than the proclaimed person who claims an interest in the attached property, and objects to the attachment on the ground that such interest is not liable to attachment, may prefer a claim or objection within six months from the date of attachment. It is inquired into by this Court (or, where the property was attached pursuant to endorsement under S.83(2), it may also be preferred before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the district in which the attachment was made) and is allowed or disallowed in whole or in part. A claimant/objector whose claim is disallowed may institute a civil suit within one year to establish the right claimed; this Court's order remains conclusive, subject to the result of that suit.

2.  Release, Sale and Restoration (S.85 Cr.P.C. / S.88 BNSS): if the proclaimed person appears within the time specified in the original proclamation, the property is released forthwith. If he does not, the property is treated as at the disposal of the State Government, but may not be sold before the expiry of six months from the date of attachment and the disposal of any claim/objection under S.84 (unless it is perishable or a sale would benefit the owner). If, within two years from the date of attachment, the proclaimed person appears or is apprehended and satisfies the Court that he had not absconded to avoid the warrant and had no notice of the proclamation in time to appear, the property (or sale proceeds) is delivered to him after deducting the costs of attachment.

3.  Proclaimed Offender Declaration (S.82(4) Cr.P.C. / S.84(4) BNSS) — related but distinct from attachment: where the accusation is of an offence to which S.82(4) applies [under Cr.P.C., the specified serious IPC offences; under BNSS, any offence punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more, imprisonment for life, or death], and the accused fails to appear despite due proclamation, the Court may, after inquiry, declare him a “proclaimed offender.” This carries its own consequences, including exposure to prosecution under S.174A IPC / S.209 BNS for non-appearance, and bears on eligibility for anticipatory bail.