IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21785 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.R.BHAVADAS, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 64 YEARS, 9/149, CHATHAMKULAM HOUSE, KONGAD P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 631. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P..N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 21785 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that Ext. P2 sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration was refused to be registered by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner has not paid stamp duty on the document on the basis of the fair value fixed by the Government under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed Ext. P4 appeal before the District Collector against the fair value fixed, which is pending. According to the petitioner, it is not fair on the part of the 2nd respondent to insist on payment of stamp duty on the fair value while the fair value itself is under challenge in Ext. P4 also. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to register Ext. P2 document subject to further orders to be passed in Ext. P4 appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext. P3 notice. ii. Issue a writ to declare that the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to register Ext. P2 after accepting the registration fee and completing the formalities is illegal and improper.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. He opposes the same. According to him, the Government has already fixed the fair value. As per the amended Kerala Stamp Act, the petitioner is bound to pay stamp duty on the fair value fixed. The law being that the stamp duty is payable on the fair value, the 2nd respondent cannot register the sale deed unless stamp duty is paid on the fair value, is the contention of the learned Government Pleader. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am inclined to agree with the learned Government Pleader. W.P.C. No. 21785/2010 -: 2 :- Once fair value has been fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, going by Article 22 of the Schedule of the Kerala Stamp Act, the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty on Ext. P2 on the fair value. Therefore, the request for registration of Ext. P2 by paying stamp duty on the consideration fixed for Ext. P2 cannot be accepted. But, the petitioner's Ext. P4 appeal is liable to be disposed of expeditiously. Therefore, I direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P4 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. I further make it clear that if the District Collector reduces the fair value, it would be open to the petitioner to apply for refund of excess stamp duty paid by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.