IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 24741 of 2001(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MAJEED, S/O. MANNAMTHARA ALI, P.O. PUTHENCHIRA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR, 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, KODUNGALLUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA BABU THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.40441/01 DISMISSED. 3/1/08 SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF DEED OF KODUNGALLUR SRO DATED 22.4.95 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 4.8.2001 ISSUED BY R2 TO PETITINER EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14.8.2001 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.24741 of 2001-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased 4 ½ cents of land with a dilapidated shop building therein in Sy. No.296/3 of Lokamaleswaram village as per Ext.P1 document. The petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice directing him to pay deficit stamp duty as assessed by the District Registrar as per his proceedings dated 30.8.1996. According to the petitioner, he has not been served with any notice in the matter and therefore, he filed a detailed representation as Ext.P3, disputing the claim made against him. Aggrieved by the above actions of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking to quash Ext.P2. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is averred that the first respondent had passed an order under Rule 4 of the Kerala Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of Instruments) Rules 1968 on 30.8.1996 provisionally determining the consideration of the property at Rs.2 Lakhs and directing the petitioner to pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs.8,750/- and deficit registration fee of Rs.1,400/-. It is stated that the said provisional order has been communicated to the petitioner as well as the OP 24741/2001 -2- second respondent. Copy of the above order has not been produced along with the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that direction may be issued to the first respondent to communicate a copy of the said order to the petitioner, for enabling him to challenge the same in appeal before the District Collector as provided under Rule 45-A(4) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. 3. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to communicate to the petitioner a copy of the order dated 30.8.1996 by registered post, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is allowed a further period of one month to file appeal against the said order before the District Collector. On receipt of the appeal, the District Collector shall hear and dispose of the appeal on merits, after hearing the petitioner also. The interim order passed by this court will continue in force till orders are passed and communicated to the petitioner by the District Collector. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 24741/2001 -3- T. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.24741of 2001-U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 3rd January, 2008.