MANU/AP/0055/2025

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2025(2)ALT51, 2025:APHC :1353

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

Writ Petition No. 298/2025
Decided On: 20.01.2025
Mallikarjuna Kondapaneni and Ors. Vs. The State of AP and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P. Sai Surya Teja
For Respondents/Defendant: GP
ORDER
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
1. Heard Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri K. Arjun
Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government for Stamps & Registration appearing for all
the Respondents
2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:
"It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or a
direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring
the action of the 4threspondent, Sub-Registrar, Tirupathi RO, in directing the
petitioners to pay the stamp duty (@6.5%) and registration fee (@1%) on
market value of the property instead of the Value of the Sale Certificate/Auction
Value of Rs.2,17,50,000/- as the same is contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary and
violative of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and seeking a consequential
direction to the 4threspondent Sub-Registrar, Tirupathi RO to receive, register
and release the Sale Certificate/Deed of Sale executed by the Canara Bank in
favour of the petitioners in respect of the property bearing Shop Nos.001 Part,
308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 313A, 314 and 501 of Central Park Commercial
Complex together with undivided share of land admeasuring 247.46 Sq Yards
along with 35% of Parking situated in Tirupathi Town, Municipal 13thward,
Reddy and Reddy Colony area, No.29 Village Accounts, Tirupathi Urban Mandal,
Tirupathi Sub-District, Sri Balaji Registration District [hereinafter referred to as
the „subject property], without insisting payment of stamp duty
(@6.5%) and registration fee (@1%) on market value of the property and by
accepting the stamp duty on the Value of the Sale Certificate which is
Rs.2,17,50,000/- and to pass such other and further orders."
3. The facts, as stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, are that the
Specialized Asset Recovery and Management Branch of Canara Bank, Tirupati initiated
the Proceedings under the provisions of Securitization and Re-construction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for recovery of
the dues from the borrower and issued e-Auction Notice for the sale of subject property
25-07-2025 (Page 1 of 10) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla
on 05.12.2024 indicating that the e-Auction would be conducted on 23.12.2024; that on
the scheduled date of e-Auction i.e., on 23.12.2024, the Writ Petitioners herein have
participated and were declared as successful bidders for an amount of Rs.2,17,50,000/-
(upset price was fixed as Rs.2,17,00,000/-); that the Writ Petitioners have paid the EMD
as well as 25% of the sale amount of a sum of Rs.54,37,500/- on the same date; that
the Writ Petitioners have also complied with all the other conditions and have thereafter
paid the entire auction amount to Canara Bank, Tirupati and have obtained the Sale
Certificate on 30.12.2024; that the Writ Petitioners approached the Sub-Registrar,
Tirupati (Respondent No.4) for registration of the Sale Certificate; whereas, the
Respondent No.4 directed the Writ Petitioners to pay the stamp duty and registration fee
on the market value of the subject property; that the Respondent No.4 had stated that
the registration will not be permissible unless the stamp duty and the registration fee is
paid on the market value of the property and not on the auction value; that the
Respondent No.4 had also issued Market Value Certificate of the subject property
indicating that the total value of the subject property is Rs.3,65,76,500/- (Three crores
sixty five lakhs seventy six thousand five hundred).
4. Having been aggrieved of the stand taken by the Respondent No.4 to the effect that
the registration would be permitted only if the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee is paid
on the market value as indicated in the Market Value Certificate (i.e., ' 3,65,76,500/-)
but not as per the Sale Certificate issued by the Canara Bank (i.e., on ' 2,17,50,000/-),
the present Writ Petition is filed.
5 . Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that though the law is well
settled on this issue, it is legally untenable on the part of the Respondent No.4 to insist
for the payment of stamp duty and registration fee on the market value instead of the
amount fetched in the auction sale.
6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed reliance on a Judgment rendered
by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Principal Secretary and Ors. Vs. Marvel Financial Services Ltd., rep. by its Director Mr.
P. Srinivas Chowdary and Anr. : MANU/AP/2707/2022.
6(a). A Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court was once again compelled to deal with the
batch of Writ Petitions involving the very same issue in Atkuri Venkata Krishna Vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (W.P.No.24898 of 2024 and batch). The Division Bench of
this Hon'ble Court in its Final Order dated 06.12.2024 had also referred to a recent
Memo issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh thereby, giving a directive to all the
Officers in the Department of Registration to comply with the law declared by this
Hon'ble Court. The relevant portion of this Memo No.REV08-12022/11/2023-CCRA SEC-
IGRS dated 29.04.2024 is usefully extracted hereunder:
"2. After careful examination of the proposals of the Commissioner and
Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh in the reference
cited and in compliance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the
Government hereby directed that the auction value/value indicated in
instruments to be taken into consideration for the proposed pending documents
in the reference cited while determining the Deficit Stamp Duty and Registration
Fee on the sale certificate issued under SARFEASI Act, 2002 instead of market
value.
3 . The Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Andhra
Pradesh is requested to take necessary action in the matter accordingly."

25-07-2025 (Page 2 of 10) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

7. Having regard to the above facts, the following issue arises for determination:
Issues:-
i. In cases where property is purchased in an auction sale in recovery
proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, whether the Stamp Duty and
Registration Fee is payable on the value fetched in the auction sale or on the
market value as fixed by the Registrar?
ii. Whether there is an indispensable constitutional 'duty' cast upon the
executive to follow the law (ratio decidendi) that is declared by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India under Article 141 read with Article 144 of the
Constitution of India?
iii. What is the legal consequence if the Executive violates a binding precedent?
Issue No.1:
In cases where property is purchased in an auction sale in recovery proceedings
initiated under the SARFAESI Act, whether the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee
is payable on the value fetched in the auction sale or on the market value as
fixed by the Registrar?
8. This Court has noticed that even though the law is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the year 2009 itself in V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-
Inspector and Ors: MANU/SC/0966/2009 : 2009:INSC:748 : (2009) 7 SCC 438 in para
Nos.16 to 18, the cases involving similar facts and circumstances, are being brought
before this Court almost on a regular basis. This Court, by citing V.N. Devadoss's case,
as a binding precedent, had already decided several similar cases. A learned Single
Judge has already decided cases on similar facts by placing reliance on V.N. Devadoss's
case. Even when the State has preferred an Intra-Court Appeal, a Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court has also confirmed the Order of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the
reliance was placed on the precedent rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Article 141 of
the Constitution stipulates that the law rendered/declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court
would bind all the Subordinate Courts and the Executive across the Country. It would be
the incumbent duty on the part of the Executive to keep track of the 'march of law' and
'follow the binding precedent' only to ensure that a citizen shall not be compelled to
knock at the doors of the Writ Court once again. Unfortunately, the Officers who are of
the rank of Sub-Registrar and Registrar, have been constantly violating this principle of
stare decisis. This doctrine mandates everyone including the subordinate courts and the
executive to follow the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a binding
precedent without having to apply their discretion once again. Once the law is settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would be the incumbent duty, not only on the Subordinate
Courts, but also the Executive across the country to scrupulously follow the said dictum
in all cases of similar nature.
9 . Article 300A is a constitutional right that guarantees to its citizens the right to
property. Sale and purchase of immovable and movable properties by the citizens of the
Country is a continuous process. In matters where properties are brought for sale under
various circumstances like an attached property being sold for recovery of a debt in a
Money Suit, or properties of the defaulting borrowers are brought for sale by the
respective lending institutions or the properties brought for sale for recovery of
statutory taxes/statutory dues, the general rules and procedures with regard to Stamp
Duty and Registration Fee do not apply.
25-07-2025 (Page 3 of 10) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla
10. In Shanti Devi L Singh Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Ors. :MANU/SC/0476/1990 :
1990:INSC:152 : (1990) 3 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Apex Court had explained the
difference between the process of registration and process of filing documents like Sale
Certificate issued by Tax Recovery Officers for the purchase of immovable property sold
in a Court auction. It is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a property which is
purchased in a Court auction, is not compulsorily registrable and that such Sale
Certificate shall merely be filed in Book No.1 in the Registrar's Office.
1 1 . In V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Ors:
MANU/SC/0966/2009 : 2009:INSC:748 : (2009) 7 SCC 438, while dealing specifically
with regard to the issue which is framed in the present case i.e., whether the Stamp
Duty and Registration Fee should be paid on market value or on the value fetched on
the property in an auction sale, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly and firmly laid down
the law to the effect that the Registration Authorities cannot demand payment of Stamp
Duty and Registration Fee based on market value. The Hon'ble Apex Court has explained
the difference between market value and amount fetched in an auction and also the
process involved in bringing a property for auction where the lending institution would
obtain Market Value Certificate before notifying the property for auction. Para Nos.16 to
18 of the said Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court are usefully extracted hereunder:
"16. Market value is a changing concept. The Explanation to sub-rule (5) makes
the position clear that (sic market) value would be such as would have fetched
or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the
instrument of conveyance. Here, the property was offered for sale in the open
market and bids were invited. That being so, there is no question of any
intention to defraud the revenue or non-disclosure of the correct price. The
factual scenario as indicated above goes to show that the properties were
disposed of by the orders of BIFR and AAIFR and that too on the basis of value
fixed by Assets Sales Committee. The view was expressed by the Assets Sales
Committee which consisted of members such as representatives of IDBI,
debenture-holders, Government of West Bengal and Special Director of BIFR.
That being so, there is no possibility of any undervaluation and therefore,
Section 47-A of the Act has no application. It is not correct as observed by the
High Court that BIFR was only a mediator.
17. Sale has been defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 (in short "the TP Act"). Although the Act has not included the definition of
sale, Section 2(10) of the Act defines "conveyance" as including a conveyance
on sale, every instrument and every decree or final order of any civil court by
which property whether immovable or movable or any estate or interest in any
property is transferred to, or vested in or declared to be of any other person,
inter vivos, and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I
or Schedule 1-A, as the case may be.
1 8 . On the facts of the case it cannot be said that Section 47-A has any
application because there is no scope for entertaining a doubt that there was
any undervaluation. That being so, the High Court's order is clearly
unsustainable and is set aside. The registration shall be done at the price
disclosed in the document of conveyance. There is no scope for exercising
power under Section 47-A of the Act as there is no basis for even entertaining a
belief that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of
conveyance has not been truly set forth with a view to fraudulently evade
payment of proper stamp duty."
25-07-2025 (Page 4 of 10) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla
1 2 . As the law has been clearly laid down in V.N. Devadoss's case (supra), Single
Benches of this Court, following the said case as a precedent, have consistently allowed
several Writ Petitions brought by the successful auction purchasers. The Intra-Court
Appeals filed by the State were dismissed thereby confirming the Orders of the Single
Benches since the said Orders were passed by placing reliance on V.N. Devadoss's case.
There are already several reported Judgments on the very same issue in the law
journals.
13. This discussion is being made by this Court out of sheer concern that such well
settled legal issues are again being raked-up by the Executive, again and again
compelling the citizens to approach this Court. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Principal Secretary and Ors. Vs. Marvel Financial Services Ltd., rep. by its
Director Mr. P. Srinivas Chowdary and Anr. : MANU/AP/2707/2022, the Division Bench
of this Hon'ble Court, having discussed elaborately, had upheld the Order passed by the
learned Single Judge, directing the Registration Authorities to collect the Stamp Duty
and Registration Fee only on the value that is fetched in the auction sale with a clear
caveat that the Official Respondents cannot charge Stamp Duty and Registration Fee on
the market value.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, as recently as in the year 2024, in State of Punjab and
Anr. Vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings Private Limited and Ors. : MANU/SC/1237/2024, in para
20 of the said Judgment, has held as under:
"20. The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate
issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing
under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of
the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering
authority. However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first
schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction
purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract
stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate
remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction
purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of
payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise."
15. After having considered the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, the Issue No.1 is answered by this Court
holding that the Respondent Authorities (Department of Registration and Stamps) shall
collect Stamp Duty and Court Fee on the value of the property as mentioned in the Sale
Certificate in the present case.
Issue No.2:
Whether there is an indispensable constitutional 'duty' cast upon the executive
to follow the law (ratio decidendi) that is declared by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India under Article 141 read with Article 144 of the Constitution of
India?
16. The Article 141 of Constitution of India reads as under:
"141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts - The law
declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory
of India."

25-07-2025 (Page 5 of 10) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

17. The Article 144 of Constitution of India reads as under:
"Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court - All
authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the
Supreme Court."
1 8 . The Article 141 r/w 144 would lead to a categorical conclusion that the law
declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court binds not only the Courts within the territory of
India but would also bind all the authorities, civil and judicial in the territory of India
and all the authorities shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. This goes without saying
that the law declared by the Supreme Court, which is final by its very nature, binds the
executive and the executive cannot take a view different from the law that is laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Ors:
MANU/SC/0966/2009 : 2009:INSC:748 : (2009) 7 SCC 438 shall be adhered to by the
executive namely the Department of Registration in the present case. They cannot insist
on the auction purchaser to pay Stamp Duty and Registration Charges on the market
value in respect of a property which has been purchased in an auction sale, if such
auction is held by the Court or the Financer under the SARFAESI Act or by a Tax
Recovery Officer.
19. The binding nature of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 read
with Article 144 of the Constitution of India has been spelt out by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Paragraph No.16 in E.T.Sunup Vs. C.A.N.S.S.Employees Association and
Another: MANU/SC/0886/2004 : 2004:INSC:600 : (2004) 8 SCC 683, which reads as
under:
"16. It has become a tendency with the government officers to somehow or the
other circumvent the orders of court and try to take recourse to one justification
or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the
Court. This tendency of undermining the Court's order cannot be countenanced.
This Court time and again has emphasised that in a democracy the role of the
court cannot be subservient to administrative fiat. The executive and legislature
have to work within the constitutional framework and the judiciary has been
given the role of watchdog to keep the legislature and executive within check.
In the present case, we fail to understand the counter filed by the appellant
before the Court. On one hand they say that all the cases of GPF have been
processed and on the other hand they are not prepared to revoke the
administrative order. This only shows a deliberate attempt on the part of the
bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court and stick to their stand. This
is clear violation of the Court's order and the appellant is guilty of flouting the
Court's order."
Issue No.3:
What is the legal consequence if the Executive violates a binding precedent?
2 0 . Before parting with this case, having regard to the frequent of recurrence of a
situation of the present nature where the executive is frequently demanding payment of
Stamp Duty and Registration Fee based on the market value in cases where the property
has been purchased in an auction sale held either by the Court or by the Financer under
the SARFAESI Act or by a Tax Recovery Officer, this Court has noticed that there is a
flood of litigation in respect of the present issues which are involved. This Court is
coming across such cases almost on a daily basis. When the law has been clearly laid
25-07-2025 (Page 6 of 10) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla
down, there is a duty cast upon the executive to follow the said law for the reason that
if the said law is not followed, it compels the aggrieved party to invoke the jurisdiction
of the Writ Court which is plainly avoidable. When once the law has attained finality by
virtue of its declaration by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141, the executive shall
dutifully abide by such law as per Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The Principle
of 'stare decisis' is a jurisprudential concept which is founded to ensure avoidance of
multiplicity of litigation by compelling everyone to follow the precedent. When the
Hon'ble Supreme Court declares the law, the executive 'shall' implement the said law
without any deviation or dilution or by raising any objection. The executive can only
look upon the 'precedent' which is laid down by the Apex Court which is deemed to
have attained finality and simply follow it. Taking a different view would only render
misery to the common man compelling him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Writ Court
which is plainly avoidable.
2 1 . The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs. Union of India:
MANU/SC/1246/2011 : (2012) 1 SCC 273, while exercising the Contempt jurisdiction,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the inescapable mandamus that is cast upon
the executive and as an inescapable duty to comply with the law declared b the Hon'ble
Apex Court. In Paragraph No.20 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
as under:
"20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily concerned
with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and wilful
violation of the orders of the court, even to constitute a civil contempt. Every
party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey the orders
of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person is required to respect
and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The
government departments are no exception to it. The departments or
instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the court
and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to.
Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of
the court, least that is expected of the government department or its
functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or clarifications, if
called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor
approaches the court making appropriate prayers for extension of time or
variation of order, the only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys
the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally not carrying out the
orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court's orders would reflect the
attitude of the party concerned to undermine the authority of the courts, its
dignity and the administration of justice."
22. In State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari : MANU/SC/0002/1960 : 1960:INSC:157
: (1961) 1 SCR 728, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the said Judgment held
at para 31 as under:
"34. Before concluding, we consider it proper to draw attention to one aspect of
the case. It is of the essence of the rule of law that every authority within the
State including the executive Government should consider itself bound by and
obey the Law. It is fundamental to the system of polity that India has adopted
and which is embodied in the Constitution that the Courts of the land are vested
with the powers of interpreting the law and of applying it to the facts of the
cases which are properly brought before them. If any party to the proceedings
considers that any Court has committed any error, in the understanding of the
25-07-2025 (Page 7 of 10) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla
 law or in its application, resort must be had to such review or appeals as the
law provides. When once an order has been passed which the Court has
jurisdiction to pass, it is the duty of all persons bound by it to obey the order
so long as it stands, and it would tend to the subversion of orderly
administration and civil Government, if parties could disobey orders with
impunity. If such is the position as regard private parties, the duty to obey is all
the more imperative in the case of Governmental authorities, otherwise there
would be a conflict between one branch of the State polity viz. the executive
and another branch - the Judicial. If disobedience could go unchecked, it would
result in orders of Courts ceasing to have any meaning and judicial power itself
becoming a mockery. When the State Government obeys a law, or gives effect
to an order of a Court passed against it, it is not doing anything which detracts
from its dignity, but rather, invests the law and the Courts with the dignity
which are their due, which enhances the prestige of the executive Government
itself, in a democratic set-up "
2 3 . In Shri Baradakanta Mishra Ex-Commissioner of Endowments Vs. Shri Bhimsen
Dixit : MANU/SC/0067/1972 : 1972:INSC:241 : 1973 1 SCC 446, the Hon'ble Apex
Court at para 15 of the said Judgment had held as under:
"15. The conduct of the appellant in not following the previous decision of the
High Court is calculated to create confusion in the administration of law. It will
undermine respect for law laid down by the High Court and impair the
constitutional authority of the High Court. His conduct is therefore
comprehended by the principles underlying the law of contempt. The analogy of
the inferior court's disobedience to the specific order of a superior court also
suggests that his conduct falls within the purview of the law of contempt. Just
as the disobedience to a specific order of the Court undermines the authority
and dignity of the court in a particular case, similarly the deliberate and mala
fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision
undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. Indeed,
while the former conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a
limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much wider and more
disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to undermine the constitutional
authority and respect of the High Court, generally, but is also likely to subvert
the Rule of Law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the
administration of law."
24. In Priya Gupta Vs. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare : MANU/SC/1093/2012 :
2012:INSC:601 : 2013 11 SCC 404, the Hon'ble Apex Court, had the occasion to explain
the consequences of willful disobedience of the Orders of the Court by the Executive.
Para Nos.12 & 13 of the said Judgment are usefully extracted hereunder:
"12. The government departments are no exception to the consequences of
wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court. Violation of the orders of the
Court would be its disobedience and would invite action in accordance with law.
The orders passed by this Court are the law of the land in terms of Article 141
of the Constitution of India. No court or tribunal and for that matter any other
authority can ignore the law stated by this Court. Such obedience would also be
conducive to their smooth working, otherwise there would be confusion in the
administration of law and the respect for law would irretrievably suffer. There
can be no hesitation in holding that the law declared by the higher court in the
State is binding on authorities and tribunals under its superintendence and they
25-07-2025 (Page 8 of 10) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla
 cannot ignore it. This Court also expressed the view that it had become
necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of
discipline have a grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and
encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and
certainty are important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence developed in this
country, as discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of
the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of law, it is not possible
to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are
required to lay down the law. (Ref. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector
of Customs [MANU/SC/0179/1962 : 1962:INSC:210 : AIR 1962 SC 1893] and
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [MANU/SC/4591/2008 : 2008:INSC:1234 :
(2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .) (SCC p. 57, paras 90-91)
13. These very principles have to be strictly adhered to by the executive and
instrumentalities of the State. It is expected that none of these institutions
should fall out of line with the requirements of the standard of discipline in
order to maintain the dignity of institution and ensure proper administration of
justice."
25. In the above premise, this Writ Petition is allowed. The Official Respondent No.4 is
directed to register the Sale Certificate of the Writ Petitioners in accordance with law by
fixing Stamp Duty and Registration Fee on the value shown in the Sale Certificate i.e.,
Rs.2,17,50,000/-. No order as to costs.
Directions:
26. Since this Court has been encountering a flood of cases of this nature, this Court is
of the view that these instances are occurring on account of ignorance of law by the
Officers who are of the rank of Sub-Registrars and Registrars. This anomaly can be
cured by enlightening the concerned Officials about the development and 'march of law'
in the relevant subject. It is the opinion of this Court that this requirement can be met
by organizing periodical workshops or training sessions to the concerned Officials for
keeping them abreast of the changes occurring in the law from time to time.
2 7 . For achieving the above objective it would be necessary to firstly formulate a
'Legal-Module' which incorporates the necessary case-law dealing with the subject of
Registration and holding symposiums or workshops or training sessions in any form for
all the Officers who are involved in the Registration of Instruments by making them
aware of the contents of such module. As the current era is earmarked by the explosion
of 'Information-Technology', the training sessions can be conducted effortlessly through
Online classes (by video-conferencing). One can easily avoid wastage of time and
resources by conducting Online classes for the Officers, while achieving the desired
results effectively and efficiently.
28. In order to give effect to the above observations, there shall be a direction to the
Principal Secretary, Revenue to prepare a 'Legal-Module' in consultation with the
learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh and impart the contents of
such 'module' to all the Officers involved in the Department of Registration in the State
in the manner indicated above. There shall be a further direction to prepare a 'Legal-
Module' within four weeks from the date of uploading of this Order. Thereafter, the
training sessions shall be conducted.
29. Post after eight weeks to enable the Official Respondents to submit a Report as
25-07-2025 (Page 9 of 10) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla
regards the progress in implementing the above directions.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

25-07-2025 (Page 10 of 10) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla