IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20235 of 2010(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. PAREEKUTTY, S/O.ENIKUTTY, CHERAKKAKUDY HOUSE, VENGOLA VILLAGE, VENGOLA KARA, ALLAPPARA PO, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2. RASHEED, S/O.ENIKUTTY, CHERAKKAKUDY HOUSE, VENGOLA VILLAGE, VENGOLA KARA, ALLAPPARA PO, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 3. RAZAK, S/O.MOOSA, THELAMPURAM HOUSE, VENGOLA VILLAGE, VENGOLA KARA, ALLAPPARA PO, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, PERUMBAVOOR, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, PO PERUMBAVOOR, 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, DISTRICT REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL SATION, KAKKANAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 20235 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners purchased certain properties by Ext.P3 sale deed dated 22.06.2010. When the same was presented for registration, the 1st respondent has refused to register the same on the ground that stamp duty as per the fair value fixed by the Government has not been paid on the document. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent to register Exhibit P3 sale deeds dated 22.06.2010 executed in favour of the petitioners and give back the original deeds to the petitioners.” 2. The contention of the petitioners is that, in view of the decision of this court in Periyar Real Estates v. State of W.P.(C)No. 20235 of 2010 -2- Kerala (2002 (1) KLT 806), the 1st respondent cannot refuse to register a document on the ground of undervaluation. All what he can do is to register the document as presented and take further proceedings under Section 45 B of the Kerala Stamp Act for undervaluation is the contention of the petitioners. Petitioners further submit that against the fair value fixed in respect of the property, petitioners have filed an appeal which is also pending. Therefore pending disposal of that appeal, the 1st respondent is liable to be directed to register the sale deed is the contention of the petitioners. 3. A statement has been filed by the Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents, wherein the stand taken is that since Annexure R1 (a) notification fixing the fair value for the land in question has been issued unless the petitioner pays stamp duty on the basis of the fair value so fixed, the 1st respondent is not bound to register the sale deed. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. W.P.(C)No. 20235 of 2010 -3- 5. Articles 21 and 22 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act has been recently amended, as per which the stamp duty payable on conveyance is the percentage fixed therein on the fair value of the land or the amount or value of the consideration for such conveyance, whichever is higher. 6. Admittedly fair value has already been fixed for the land in question. Petitioners themselves admit that, against the same, petitioners have filed an appeal. Petitioners also admit that the document does not bear the stamp as per the fair value so fixed. Therefore the 1st respondent could not have legally registered the document. This is not a case of undervaluation as suggested by the petitioners, so as to rope in this case within the purview of the decision in Periyar Real Estates's case (supra). The question involved in this case is as to whether adequate stamp duty has been paid on the document which is a different question. When on the face of the document, it is clear that, the petitioners have not paid the stamp duty as provided under the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act. I do W.P.(C)No. 20235 of 2010 -4- not think that, the 1st respondent can be compelled to register the document. Therefore there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/