1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE:10-03-2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2011 S.Angappan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Sub-Registrar, Melapalaym, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tirunelveli. ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to release the registered sale deed dated 21.05.1999 in document No.2278/1999 to the petitioner. For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Mani For R.1 & 2 :: Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Addl.Govt.Pleader ORDER The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition challenging the order of the registration authority under Section 47-A directing him to pay Rs.73,199/- by an order dated 20.12.2005. 2. It is very unfortunate such Writ Petition is being filed. The petitioner who has registered the documents with the registration authority was served with notice under Section 47-A to pay the stamp duty. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner already filed an appeal to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tirunelveli and finally, an order was passed on 20.12.2005 by the appellate authority fixing the stamp duty payable and final order has been served on the petitioner. It is pertinent to point out here that the document was registered in the year 1999. After the appeal provision, the final order was passed on 20.12.2005. 3. In the appeal order itself it is very clearly stated that if he is aggrieved he can prefer an appeal within 60 days to the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. But the petitioner has kept quite for six years. Neither he paid the money nor sought for return of the documents. Now, after a gap of six years, he sent a representation on 02.02.2011, to the original authority, namely, the Sub-Registrar concerned seeking him for return of the original documents without making the payment of the additional stamp duty as fixed by the authority concerned. However, he has come forward with a Writ of Mandamus seeking for the return of the documents. This Court does not find any reason to entertain the Writ Petition. This is nothing but a frivolous petition. After six https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 years, he has come forward with a Writ Petition for consideration of the alleged representation sent by him and thereafter, for a Mandamus to return the documents in question without making the necessary payments to the respondents. 4. In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 would clearly contemplate that an appeal is provided for under which the appellate authority for the purpose of sub-section (5) of Section 47-A shall be the Chief Controller Revenue Authority and such an appeal shall be preferred within a period of two months from the date of Collector's order determining the market value under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7. Since he has not preferred any appeal in time, mere representation seeking for return of the documents, is not maintainable and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR ssm To 1.The Sub-Registrar, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tirunelveli. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEDER SR: 6249: DM:2011::APRIL:05::: W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2011 10-03-2011 2P;4C:; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/